Should DNA be kept for all of us?

[sharpies]

I reckon this sounds a lot like the arguements that would have taken place back when Police first collected fingerprints. How will they store them? What if they are labelled wrong? What happens if I move out & there is a crime commited & they find evidence that I was there.

For starters, I doubt they would actually store DNA, it would be difficult to store & it does degrade. They would have it broken down & then the results stored on a computer, the same way fingerprints are. Yes there may be mistakes & yes it is possible to plant DNA at a crime scene, but there are many ways you can frame someone & having a piece of them may not be the easiest.

The only way this will not happen is if people stop committing crimes.

 

[Dana]

I don't have the same level of confidence as you that police wouldn't be tempted/required to use the DNA database first - then ask questions later. I just sense there would be LOTS of misjustice to follow if we went down that path.

If this occurred i wouyldn't haver trust in the police either, I don't have specific numbers but I've seen a lot of cops with a God copmplex.

 

[edgray]

I reckon this sounds a lot like the arguements that would have taken place back when Police first collected fingerprints. How will they store them? What if they are labelled wrong? What happens if I move out & there is a crime commited & they find evidence that I was there.

For starters, I doubt they would actually store DNA, it would be difficult to store & it does degrade. They would have it broken down & then the results stored on a computer, the same way fingerprints are. Yes there may be mistakes & yes it is possible to plant DNA at a crime scene, but there are many ways you can frame someone & having a piece of them may not be the easiest.

The only way this will not happen is if people stop committing crimes.

I think the point here is that EVERYONE's DNA will be kept on file, which isn't the case with fingerprints. For the police to keep your fingerprints on record, you need to have been arrested.

The DNA would obviously be stored in a large database, as the police already do this for people who have committed a crime. If they did this for everyone, there would not only be a massive increase in the number of innocent people accused of crimes, but also it gives the govt potential to know an awful lot about you. By having your DNA on record, the police could discover your DNA in all sorts of places, store the information of where they found it and build a profile of you . a profile that could include things like political leanings, sexual persuasion, what you do in your free time etc etc.

When the govt, or anyone, has access to that kind of information they're getting a window into your mind. And all this about someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

Now thats just one small example of how dangerous a system like this could be.

 

[Peter Parka]

What if I were to jack off and spill some jizz on my carpet? Two years later, someone else is living in this apartment and is murdered. The police find traces of my DNA here and take me into custody based solely on that. I may eventually go free if I have other alabis, etc, but there's no way to undo the damage of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because we've decided it's easier and cheaper to just "use the database" rather than have actual police do actual police work.

As was said before: too many variables.

Not to mention the embaressment of forever more being known by everyone as the guy who spunked all over his carpet and didn't even clean it up. :24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Do you realize how much other information is contained in your DNA? Everything about you is in there, from your susceptibility to certain diseases to how tall you're going to be. If you get a chance, read Next by Michael Crichton.

Yeah, but it's not like it would be legal for a technician to do random tests on people's DNA.

Your DNA inarguably belongs to you, and cannot be seized without a warrant. If you have commited no crime, a warrant cannot be issued because there's no probable cause. Our Constitution is awesome, if only our government would start following it...

really, the argument against this is that there is just no reason. The only thing the government should be allowed to do with your DNA and fingerprints is to test John/Jane Does and to test fresh DNA and fingerprints on crime scenes, for suspects, witnesses, and possibly victims if their bodies or identification is not at the crime scene.

And there is probable cause, if there is a crime committed, everyone in that area becomes a suspect, giving reasonable enough probable cause to do a simple DNA test (it' not the same as arresting everyone in a neighborhood and questioning them, then to test their DNA without them having even know that they did). Not only that, but there is probable cause in possibly saving lives (finding out who has kidnapped your eight year old daughter, so you can find him; and save her before she is murdered), notifying families that they have found their loved ones body so they can have some closure, and finding out John Does name, so they can notify family that he has been in a car crash, is in a coma, and that they should probably come see him in the hospital--before he dies. You know stuff like that. All things that this DNA system could make us capable of--that's all probable cause to have everyone's DNA on file.

It''s not a waste of money, or time, it could save countless victims after they have already been taken--and catch criminals so they can never take anyone else again.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I think the point here is that EVERYONE's DNA will be kept on file, which isn't the case with fingerprints. For the police to keep your fingerprints on record, you need to have been arrested.

The DNA would obviously be stored in a large database, as the police already do this for people who have committed a crime. If they did this for everyone, there would not only be a massive increase in the number of innocent people accused of crimes, but also it gives the govt potential to know an awful lot about you. By having your DNA on record, the police could discover your DNA in all sorts of places, store the information of where they found it and build a profile of you . a profile that could include things like political leanings, sexual persuasion, what you do in your free time etc etc.

When the govt, or anyone, has access to that kind of information they're getting a window into your mind. And all this about someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

Now thats just one small example of how dangerous a system like this could be.

This is once again ridiculous.

Have you heard of a thing called regulations?

We could just say that they can only test DNA for Jane/John does, crime scene investigation, etc. We could also say that only a few, high position (high risk to lose a high paying job they worked to get, to do something stupid like tamper with DNA or rest someone to see if they are real a guy or not), technicians have access to testing the DNA, not any police officer who wants to check it out.

There are also, many other, countless regulations we could place on this DNA system to prevent anyone from being able to take advantage of it--or for it to become a 'slippery slope' to total loss of rights or some other bs.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Why is it ridiculous? Investigators always take the easy way, use the simplest explanation. DNA is commonly taken as a confession of guilt. It's absolutely logical to suggest that police would go with DNA evidence to the neglect of other evidence.

I'm sorry this is just a stupid argument.

If police start totally relying on a new system, instead of doing their police work like they are supposed to--the problem lies with in our police, not the new system. So don't blame the new system, because that's just stupid.

It's like saying "My son used to do all his homework before he got the internet, therefore, all the internet should be banned." Ummmm.. no, how about you discipline your son? but don't just take it away from him, because now a days, kids actually do need the internet to do homework.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sorry this is just a stupid argument.

If police start totally relying on a new system, instead of doing their police work like they are supposed to--the problem lies with in our police, not the new system. So don't blame the new system, because that's just stupid.

It's like saying "My son used to do all his homework before he got the internet, therefore, all the internet should be banned." Ummmm.. no, how about you discipline your son? but don't just take it away from him, because now a days, kids actually do need the internet to do homework.

You've got a large vocabulary; I'd appreciate a bit more effort in your word choice than 'stupid'.

Your analogy is way off. You hit closer to the mark (but still be off) if you made it all students being tempted to plagiarize when given the wealth of information the internet offers, especially if teachers had no way to check on them.

You put a lot of trust in regulations controlling the ones charged with enforcing regulations. I suppose tht a good and important trust to have, but you can't grant it blindly.

All other arguments aside, storing personal information without specific cause and specific permission is a violation of our individual rights. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned or incorruptibly honest the violators might be.

 

[Peter Parka]

The police are the last people I'd trust with anything. I know there are some coppers on here and no, I'm not referring to you you. Harlow police are the most bent bunch of arseholes I've ever come across though. The've framed me enough to send me to prison and I've seen them with my own eyes doing drugs they nicked off of others while doing their job. The argument that you've not anything to fear if you've done nothing wrong may be valid in an uncorrupt world but unfortunately the system is full of bent arseholes.

 

[Accountable]

I just got a vision of spiral poop. :yuk

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I already said my mistrust with the people that have hold of our DNA is the only thing I dislike about this. So we are in agreeance there.

But I still think it's just stupid to say bs like it unconstitutional.

 

[Accountable]

It's absolutely unconstitutional. The constitution spells out what the federal government may do. It is also clear that omission is not permission but prohibition. There's not a word about keeping personal private information on citizens, especially without cause.

eta: I can hook you up for your personal copy of the Constitution if you'd like.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I read the article, dealing with this, and like I said, I think we have cause, and the information isn't that personal--as long as it's not allowed to be used personally. Only allowing for DNA tests from Jane/John Does and DNA material from crime scenes really isn't an invasion of privacy.

 

[Tim]

I'm gonna have to side with Accountable on this one. Demanding me to submit to a DNA test without probable cause would be a violation of my rights. This wouldn't make it past judge judy.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Truth is I really believe in protecting our rights, and that all of them matter, to a degree. But seeing all the possibilities of having a DNA bank, like the one proposed, is just to much for me to not give up this one simple, tiny, right, that doesn't protect our privacy, or do anything, either then identify people that have been at crime scenes or victims in them, as long as the proper regulations are in place.

 

[Tim]

Truth is I really believe in protecting our rights, and that all of them matter, to a degree. But seeing all the possibilities of having a DNA bank, like the one proposed, is just to much for me to not give up this one simple, tiny, right, that doesn't protect our privacy, or do anything, either then identify people that have been at crime scenes or victims in them, as long as the proper regulations are in place.

Then it should be okay for the police to conduct random searches of all homes for illegal contraband or drugs. Except we will make it so the police won't actually know who lives there, like a blind search. And they will only arrest those who are found to be guilty of whatever they find.

 

[RedRyder]

I say that the government just put chips in everyone. That way, we know where everyone is... or was.... at any given time. No one would dare do anything wrong, cause they know they'd get caught. Right?


Did you know that those getting the H1N1 are also being injected with this super sensitive solution that will enable tracking?

Food for thought..... BS most likely..... but think about it.

I am not paranoid. I am somewhat double jointed though... in some areas.....

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Then it should be okay for the police to conduct random searches of all homes for illegal contraband or drugs. Except we will make it so the police won't actually know who lives there, like a blind search. And they will only arrest those who are found to be guilty of whatever they find.

Still not the same as DNA, it doesn't infringe on your life at all if your DNA is tested, unless i it's found positive.

 

[Tim]

Still not the same as DNA, it doesn't infringe on your life at all if your DNA is tested, unless i it's found positive.

So if the police knocked on your door and said that everyone in the house needed to submit a DNA sample or go to jail, you would be ok with that?

How about just a mug shot and your finger prints?

What justification would they give the courts to create a law that would require people to submit their DNA???

 

[Goat Whisperer]

So if the police knocked on your door and said that everyone in the house needed to submit a DNA sample or go to jail, you would be ok with that?

How about just a mug shot and your finger prints?

What justification would they give the courts to create a law that would require people to submit their DNA???

Take it at birth. Set it up over the next century. Everyone else could give it volantarily, and we could take finger prints in schools.