Both sides of the controversy over Proposition 69 are equally adamant, but I can’t figure out the rationale of those opposed. If you have done nothing wrong, then why bitch about DNA sampling being an invasion of your privacy?
Given that a DNA database helps law enforcement accurately nail the bad guys and exonerate the innocent in some situations, what basis is there for a complaint?
Yes, I’ve heard that they want to sample people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. So what? Lots of folk have been fingerprinted without being convicted of a crime, too. I’ve never been accused of anything worse than a traffic ticket, but have been fingerprinted several times in the course of employment and security clearance applications.
Personally, I’d favor a nationwide DNA repository for citizens as well as anybody who wants to set foot in the US, but I can hear the howling already should that concept ever be broached. :rolleyes:
spooje nailed it. I’m presumed to be innocent. If evidence shows up that I may be guilty of something, the police are welcome to offer it up to a judge to see if they agree to a search, DNA sample etc. Demanding that I give up something just in case some time now, in the past, in teh future I may have/might do something illegal maybe puts me in the position of needing to prove I’m innocent, even before some one even suspects that a crime has been committed.
In addition, please do the math. FIgure out how many DNA samples would be taken, X cost per… Does CA have extra $$ floating about?
hell, last time I checked, even with the samplings only of “convicted persons” in my state, the labs were hopelessly backlogged.
Not sure what you mean. Inasmuch as I don’t use/transport drugs, traffic in stolen property, or do other illegal stuff, my car, person, and home are free of things which could get me in trouble. Kinda like why I report income from those customers who pay in cash on the schedule C-I don’t have to worry if IRS pulls me in for an audit.
Life is too short for me to spend any of it looking over my shoulder.
ducky for you. I’m exceptionally careful myself, report all income, don’t steal, do drugs, etc etc etc etc.
And I don’t want folks searching my home, my car etc. One of my more cherished freedoms, it is, the freedom to be free from unreasonable search/seizure of my person or property. Seems the founding fathers thought so too.
Wow Dances. Good to hear that you’re a very trusting and trustworthy person. Bravo!
Others of us who have had events in our lives color our trust of the system and the wont of those who are in power tend to feel differently about having the police searching our bags, car, house, or DNA when we’ve either not done anything to warrant such scrutiny. I, for one, voted against 69, and I’m pretty certain it will be overturned by the high court in California.
Databasing citizens without being convicted of a crime goes against many of the founding principles of American freedom, and it goes against my principles doubly so-even though I’m a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen(unlike our Federal employees, apparently).
Anyone else get the feeling that if the government proposed implanting a subdermal GPS tracker in every citizen, so the government can follow us 24/7 “in the interests of security”, danceswithcats would be the first to line up for the operation?
Fingerprinting is a function of arrest processing, and takes place prior to being arraigned, charged, or tried. DNA sampling is a logical extension of that process.
Isn’t it of any interest that a DNA sample could be used to easily eliminate you as a suspect in a crime committed by someone who bore a strong resemblance to you?
Then if DNA, your holiest of holies, is considered the same as fingerprinting, why aren’t all 18 year old citizens required to submit their blood, urine, semen and DNA to the authorities?
No, because in that case my DNA can be requested and I can willfully submit to the sample. If you feel it would be that useful in eliminating people as suspects, why isn’t my above idea put into use? Maybe because it is a violation of privacy when not convicted or suspected of a crime?
THis is just another inroad to removing the presumption of innocence as a burden the prosecution must overcome when charging someone with a crime.
How much information is stored in the proposed DNA profiles? It’s at least conceivable that, unlike fingerprints, one could extract data about the person from thier DNA that goes beyond identity. Since none of this information has been subpeonead, and the person hasen’t volunteered it, it would seem to be a pretty clear breach of privacy.
I’m having trouble understanding why getting your fingerprints taken and stored in a central database is just A-OK with everyone while getting your DNA fingerprint taken and stored in a central database is evil.
As I understand it, they’re not keeping these samples for all time, they are processing the sample and storing the location of specific markers in a DB so that those markers can be compared at a later date. Per the proposal, the DNA fingerprint CAN be removed from the DB if you are not convicted of the felony, I do not know if that is the case with regular fingerprints.
What, in fact, are you actually worried about them finding out via DNA? That you have a propensity to develop diabetes, or alzheimers, or cancer? I’m sure the gov’t and processing lab have nothing better to spend their money on than violating your privacy by running a bunch of extra tests that nobody other than you gives a crap about.
The anti crowd seems to be mad that your DNA will be “trapped” alongside that of convicted criminals. They’re also upset that people arrested for a felony would be “treated like criminals”. I’m finding these anti-arguments to be pretty weak.
I honestly can not see how this is not an infringement on the fifth amendment. Forget this support our troups thing, I do not see how you can be a patriot if you don’t even bother paying lip service to the ideas this country was founded on. I have to say I resent like hell the attacks on founding documents in the name of patriotism and safety.
So being ok with impressions of my fingers in a database means I cannot possibly be uncomfortable with the authorities cataloging my DNA?
Fingerprints cannot be removed, AFAIK.
WHy does one need to be worried about someone “finding out” about something to be uncomfortable with the DNA database? Must I have concerns that a prior crime I committed will come to bite me on the arse to not like the idea?
Beyond that, who in this thread mentioned anything about health conditions? That’s just fucking silly, dude.
I know of noone who has a problem with beaing “trapped” alongside criminals…and I’m confused about this comment. We are concerned that our DNA will be kept on file, period. We are also concerned that in 2005 or whenever, people who aren’t convicted of any crimes will be required to submit a sample.
Find the argument weak all you like, but if this is such a non-issue to you, why don’t we just start an involuntary sample database upon adulthood. THen we wouldn’t have to pretend that citizens were innocent, we’d just run the markers every time there was a crime. We could totally avoid due process.
Your regular fingerprint will do just as much to bite you in the ass in the future as your DNA fingerprint, so I don’t see why there is any difference. We’ve been taking fingerprints for almost a century and cataloging them without any apparent problems. Replace the unique ink fingerprint with a unique set of DNA markers and it’s suddenly a privacy violation.
What is the difference between the two? They are both unique, they both come from me, they can both point to me if that type of evidence is pulled from the crime scene. One has been done for a long time, and nobody argues, the other is new and is being fought tooth and nail.
You don’t want this to be used against you in the future? That’s a fair statement, just expand it to include ink fingerprints and photographs, they’re both used against you as well.
It isn’t so much that I want to have everyone volunteer for DNA sampling, it’s just that there seems to be a whole lot more resistance to this than regular fingerprinting, and I don’t get it. I don’t want everyone to get fingerprinted either, but that doesn’t mean I’ll feel violated when the cops print me (or photograph me) as part of an arrest.
PS. I agree the health condition thing is silly, as is the trapped comment, they were mentioned in the “Against” section of the proposition as reasons to vote no.
