I'm pretty sure the government already has computers and people to run them--in fact they already have a DNA system. They would just be adding more DNA to it, instead of just the people who have already been convicted of crimes.
Should DNA be kept for all of us?
- Thread starter Tyler Durden
- Start date
do you realize how many people out there have not had there dna stored? it wont be cheap to gather all that and then you have the people who will fight it tooth and nail
personally i dont think they have the right to take my dna especially since i have not commited any crime
personally i dont think they have the right to take my dna especially since i have not commited any crime
They could just start collecting in schools, and say screw it to the older generations.
Unless if you're DNA has been collected at school, you can't come. They do the same thing for vaccinations.
Unless if you're DNA has been collected at school, you can't come. They do the same thing for vaccinations.
Do you realize how many crimes could be instantly solved if we had the perpetrators DNA and finger prints on file?
That would save equal or more money lost to collecting DNA, in police hours and resources to solving crimes.
That would save equal or more money lost to collecting DNA, in police hours and resources to solving crimes.
and whats your rights? if they are alowed to do this then you dont have anymore
I think we would still have the right to freedom, press speech, religion.. well the list goes on.
I don't even see what legal right this infringes on. The right to have your DNA not recorded?
almost the same as listening to every phone conversation
what gives anyone the right to take and record my dna? its invasion of privacy, especially if you have never commited a crime
what gives anyone the right to take and record my dna? its invasion of privacy, especially if you have never commited a crime
What is private about your DNA, if someone just looks at your DNA, how does that infringe on your privacy?
I can see that it would with phone conversations, but not DNA.
I can see that it would with phone conversations, but not DNA.
htere not just looking at it, they are storing it
anyway, it cost A LOT of money to run a DNA data base and the price to run it keeps getting higher, and they dont have everyone even in there
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.
As was said before: too many variables.
Some DNA in the carpet, of an apartment you have some record of living at or knowing someone who lived at (girl friend, etc), would never stand up to even get you into court.
Now, DNA traces of your "jizz" on or inside of a hooker--that might stand up better, which is probably all they would ever test for in a database.
And to suggest that police would stop doing any other kind of standard investigation work, just because of the instillation of this database, is ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure a few years after a material, like sperm, is spilled on a surface, it becomes too degraded to get DNA off of anyways.
If you had proof that you lived there a few years/months before, then obviously, you could say that's where the material came from. You wouldn't even be charged, and in the slim chance you were--you would not be found guilty. You wouldn't know the person who died, you wouldn't have a motive, you would probably have some sort of alibi, and you would not be found guilty.
The database would be used as a tool. They would be doing the investigation, just as they normally do, while sending DNA samples to be tested for the database. It would be an extra advantage for investigating crime, nothing to rely on.
Phenominally bad idea. I agree completely with Ed.
And to balance liberty against cost just goes to show how low we've sunk as a nation. :mad
My DNA's on file. The military required it, ostensibly to help with identification if I should get blown up at my desk behind the lines. But now that it's in the database, it's there, along with my fingerprints, etc. Evidence found at crime scenes routinely check military databases to help with identification.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
The 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
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...
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.
Thank god I.... never mind. :ninja