dmarc117 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 A mug-shot and a set of finger-prints won't be enough at the booking desk anymore. The government is demanding DNA as well. "The attorney general is directing all agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals or supervise individuals facing charges to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States...'' So goes the notice in the Federal Register. It stems from the requirements of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Agencies that collect DNA will have to submit it to the FBI. Now, DNA has served to absolve some people - including Death Row convicts - of the crimes they were accused of committing. But this is an intriguing new data base for the government to control. And, so long as you don't get arrested, the government won't have your DNA. i like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 no issues with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I agree with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Ok...so, let's say (for example)...you're in a bar on a slower night having a few drinks and a fight breaks out in the corner. Cops arrive and find drugs on several someones throughout the bar. Everyone goes to the pokey while they sort it out. The Man has your DNA. Are you happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 i like the idea. no issues with this. Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Ok...so, let's say (for example)...you're in a bar on a slower night having a few drinks and a fight breaks out in the corner. Cops arrive and find drugs on several someones throughout the bar. Everyone goes to the pokey while they sort it out. The Man has your DNA. Are you happy? My happiness depends on many factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. Was just about to post the same thing. : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. what's the big diff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. +1. "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." U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV Convict me, and you can take it without my consent. Short of that, you better have a warrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Convict me, and you can take it without my consent. Short of that, you better have a warrant. do you resist the fingerprints then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. Agreed. Note to add: IF this were to happen, my understanding is that they are already well understaffed with DNA analysis technicians (or whatever their title is)... it would hinder using the technology going after legitimate open cases that need those resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 do you resist the fingerprints then? No. Their not taking any "thing" from me when I'm finger printed. A DNA sample is distinguishable on that basis. Its a fine line, though and I see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No. Their not taking any "thing" from me when I'm finger printed. A DNA sample is distinguishable on that basis. Its a fine line, though and I see that. i don't see any difference, other than the dna being far more reliable and useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 There are many angles to this: they recently convicted a man of a rape I believe by using DNA. They couldn't get HIS DNA so they got it through a family member. There's also the notion of when is it "fair game"? Arrest or conviction? If it's something short of arrest then what's to stop them from getting your DNA from a glass you used at a restaraunt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I don't have a problem with the decision to take DNA. Heck, if they had got it right in the first place (Once they had figured out DNA) they would have taken DNA from every person when they were born and we wouldn't be having this discussion nor would be having discussions about wrongfully convicted people. Taking DNA works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 The rule allows DNA samplesgenerally to be collected, along with a subject’s fingerprints, as part of the identification process. As discussed above, the uses of DNA for law enforcement identification purposes are similar in general character to the uses of fingerprints, and these uses will be greatly enhanced as a practical matter if DNA is collected regularly in addition to fingerprints. Law enforcement agencies routinely collect fingerprints from individuals whom they arrest. nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 i don't see any difference, other than the dna being far more reliable and useful. +1 What the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 +1. "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." U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV Convict me, and you can take it without my consent. Short of that, you better have a warrant. Arrests must be made based on articutable probable cause. PC has already been established at the time of arrest. Unless the arrest is ruled against or overturned by a judge and it is a "bad arrest", then destroy the DNA sample, otherwise, I don't see there being much diff between this and a fingerprint (already stated in earlier posts). Very few innocent people are arrested and even fewer convicted. Where there is smoke there is fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Er....correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about anyone that gets arrested, not everyone that gets convicted, or even charged? No thanks. Take DNA from the convicts. I think it's fine as long as the only DNA retained is from those eventually convicted. That said, I can also see skylive's point about taking everyone's at birth just as long as it is NEVER used for anything other than criminal detection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 to me, it's basically the same as taking your fingerprints when you're arrested. the argument that it's so much more invasive to have a few hairs plucked or whatever than it is to have all of your fingers rubbed in the ink and put on paper doesn't seem persuasive to me at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 what's the big diff? Without reading anyone else's responses.... There are many different circumstances under which people can be arrested. An arrest is proof of nothing other than being in a circumstance under which a police officer makes a judgement (good or bad) to arrest you. You are proven guilty of nothing at that point and there is no requirement that a person commit a crime for an arrest to have taken place. One could not practically exist. That is no better criteria for keeping a DNA database than just keeping one of everyone that is born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tboogs Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Without reading anyone else's responses.... There are many different circumstances under which people can be arrested. An arrest is proof of nothing other than being in a circumstance under which a police officer makes a judgement (good or bad) to arrest you. You are proven guilty of nothing at that point and there is no requirement that a person commit a crime for an arrest to have taken place. One could not practically exist. That is no better criteria for keeping a DNA database than just keeping one of everyone that is born. interesting....link please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 to me, it's basically the same as taking your fingerprints when you're arrested. the argument that it's so much more invasive to have a few hairs plucked or whatever than it is to have all of your fingers rubbed in the ink and put on paper doesn't seem persuasive to me at all. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Arrests must be made based on articutable probable cause. PC has already been established at the time of arrest. Unless the arrest is ruled against or overturned by a judge and it is a "bad arrest", then destroy the DNA sample, otherwise, I don't see there being much diff between this and a fingerprint (already stated in earlier posts). Very few innocent people are arrested and even fewer convicted. Where there is smoke there is fire. That essentially means that as long as a cop can come up with something that is judged sufficiently above the "lame" line, that the arrest can stand. Again, arrest is proof of nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.