A. Fingerprints have a legitimate reason to take at arrest. they provide a means of identification (in addition to being able to link to a crime scene potentially). Folks have been known to lie about their identity, we already have an established method and large databank to allow a quick easy and cheap method to confirm identity of the suspect.
B. DNA, then is an additional item, which presently does not allow us to use it as a means of confirming identity (as opposed to fingerprints, insufficient database), yet does allow for potential of additional information, and is used presently, almost exclusively as an evidenciary tool.
C. DNA sampling is (marginally) more intrusive than fingerprinting.
D. DNA sampling is (extensively) more expensive than fingerprinting.
Therefore, to me:
The only legitimate rationale for demanding either at time of arrest is to confirm identity of the suspect before you. Evidence collection is best done w/judges orders. Fingerprinting is far more useful than DNA sampling in that regard, far less expensive, marginally less intrusive. Therefore the use of DNA sampling is at best, duplicative, ineffcient, absurdly expensive, and has the potential for abuse.
Why on earth would anyone agree that it would be a good idea?
I am not against allowing for a sample to be taken if a judge orders it up. But routinely at booking? nope.
I heartily disagree that DNA should be mandatory upon arrest. I haven’t yet(and I don’t see where anyone else has) claimed that it’s unconstitutional. It’s invasive, expensive, fairly easy to muck up, IMO.
Actually, I think one could make a reasonable case that it violates the 4th and 14th Amendments. (Not that one couldn’t argue that it doesn’t; there are probably good points on both sides.)
Fingerprints obtained at the police station are used more as evidentiary identification than as “Hey, you said you were Ray, but you’re really Roy!” identification. Remember that if the arrested person was never arrested before, and has never applied for a government job, they likely haven’t been fingerprinted by a police agency/added to the AFIS.
Fingerprints found at the crime scene are often compared to the database to get an identity. This can be used to obtain a warrant but shouldn’t be used in court, as even by saying “Well, his fingerprints were in our database” you’re prejudicing the court against the defendent (by implying that s/he had been involved in previous crimes). The warrant then allows you to bring the suspect in on arrest. You take his fresh fingerprints, and these fingerprints are compared to the crime scene fingerprints by a trained fingerprint examiner.
Fingerprints from “innocent people” (eg those taken from the owner of a home to compare against the fingerprints collected during investigation of a burglary, for comparison purposes only, to eliminate the fingerprints that are expected to be there) should not be entered into the database; they should be destroyed as soon as the case is completed.
Most fingerprints are used in the same way as DNA profiles - to compare them against the fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, and say “This person had to be there to leave these fingerprints behind”. Remember, while many people who have committed crime commit multiple crimes, it is still possible that you are fingerprinting a first-time arrestee.
Eh, depends on the method used. I hate getting that ink all over my fingers, it’s so hard to wash away, and you have to *hold hands[/i with someone you don’t know! DNA seems less intrusive than inking.
No. DNA sampling is just taking a sterile cotton swab & rubbing the inside of a person’s mouth with it. Costs far less than the ink & 10-print cards used to fingerprint someone OR the LiveScan machine that fingerprints electronically. DNA profiling, on the other hand, does cost money - I believe it’s around $300 per sample here in Australia. This seems expensive now, but it’s just the start-up costs for a new technique.
Fingerprint comparison is probably just as expensive, but it’s not as easy to quantify. First, you had to buy the computers to hold your AFIS database. Then you had to pay people to scan all the 10-print cards you have into the database & enter the identifying information for each one. Then you scan the photos of crime scene fingerprints into the computer and ask the computer to compare. The computer gives a list of records that may match the crime scene fingerprints. It is the examiner’s job to then review each of these records and determine which one is a real match. This is time-consuming.
For rural areas that do not have LiveScan/AFIS capability, they are still comparing fingerprints against carefully-filed 10-print cards. They have to compare against every card that fits in the same fingerprint “category” as the crime scene fingerprint. If you only have one finger, and you don’t know which it is … well, this process is extremely lengthy.
I imagine if all the costs for fingerprint comparison were easily obtainable we’d find it’s just as expensive, and far more time-consuming, than DNA evidence.
I understand you feel that the only legitimate rationale for this is confirming that your suspect is Roy and not Ray, but that’s really not what fingerprints on arrest are used for.
At least here in Australia, any person who is having an “intimate sample” taken from them - blood, hair, buccal swab, etc. - must consent to the process before it can be done. If the person consents, then the DNA swab is taken. If the person does not consent, then the police may seek a court order to force them to do so. Do you have an objection to it being done by consent?
Hell, why is taking pictures okay? Or asking for identification. The police should just take every person at their word, right? That’d make the world a safer place. :rolleyes:
Maybe it’s okay because there is nothing wrong with it. I’m all for DNA being taken from kids when they are born, just like foot prints.
Caiata
Fingerprints are indeed used as evidenciary items, however fingerprints taken upon booking are indeed used first as a method of verifying identity. Of course if some ones’ never been printed they wouldn’t be of help that time. However, if some one gives a false name (known to happen, especially when they already have a record and don’t want that to be known), fingerprints will indeed be a means of establishing their ID. In fact, in my state (MI), if you’re challenging a criminal record in your name, the ‘proof’ is your fingerprints. THe prints are linked with the name. So my case is still made. At the time of the booking, the fingerprints are taken to verify (if possible) the identity of the bookee.
which also answers your second point.
The “sampling” comments - Fine - change my wording to "to attempt to use DNA sampling as a means of identification requires additional testing of the sample, which has an exorbitantly expensive pricetag. You then confuse the issue by attempting to compare the cost of maintaining the fingerprint database with the DNA sampling costs. Whichever database you use would have a price tag attached. Compare, if you would, the cost of taking the fingerprints vs. the taking and testing of the DNA. (one need not ‘test’ fingerprints; both would need ‘results’ fed into the database, both would need database costs, the differences in costs lies in the taking/testing phase). Again, DNA looses big time.
“Intrusive” - note that I used the word “intrusive” not “Icky”. Icky indeed does have personal connotations. what you find ickier might not be ickier to me. HOwever, ‘intrusive’ in this context - more is required of me for DNA testing to be done - I have to give up cells - either by you plucking a hair, getting a sample from inside my cheek - something. It is indeed more ‘intrusive’ than getting ones hands dirty. The police do not need a judge’s permission to get your fingerprints, they do need it to get a blood sample, and (currently) a DNA sample.
I have no objection to some one consenting to being sampled. Or if a judge orders it. I strongly object to it being done as a routine of booking a suspect. If you’re trying to establish/confirm identity, DNA sample is not as good as fingerprinting (database not nearly as large), more expensive (by a long range), and if you’re already doing a fingerprint (which is cheaper, less intrusive to the arrestee) then why duplicate those efforts with a method that won’t likely give you additional information (if you can’t match 'em by fingerprints, I’d wager the odds are great the DNA sample won’t match up to anyone known, either), and is very expensive on top of it?
kid you may not object to it, but the founding fathers and I are both more interested in personal liberties - the state has to show compelling reason to hassel me, thank you. and I like it better that way.
Yeah, DNA loses now, because it’s new. Even if you want to discount the setting-up of fingerprint databases, there’s still the cost of paying your latent print examiners to verify the results the computer database gives you. With DNA profiles matched on a database this is easy - there’s only a series of about 10 peaks on a chart, if they really do match, you can spot it in a second or two. With fingerprints this is much more difficult. You get a list of potential matches and you have to compare your suspect’s 10-print against each one to work out which match is the true match. Plus, ACE-V. All matches have to be verified independently by another print examiner … costly, time-consuming. To me, the sheer amount of time required to do these examinations seems more costly than the $300 to run your DNA sample through the automated electrophoresis machine & get your results.
I guess I wasn’t trying to say that no-one uses fingerprints to ID a person when they’ve been brought in, just that the fingerprints are still most commonly involved in evidentiary processes for casework. I suppose it’s kind of an overlapping area, anyway - you find a crime scene fingerprint, run it through your database, get a name, get the cops to arrest the guy, bring him in and take your 10-print for comparison purposes. At this point one could say the fingerprints are equally used to “confirm the guy’s identity” (by checking against the database result that compelled you to arrest him in the first place) or to “compare him to the crime scene samples”. shrug What with my forensic-oriented viewpoints, I always consider it the latter. Must be a reason they don’t let Forensic Services do the booking
You obviously have more experience in booking procedures than I do; suffice it to say I’ve been coming at this discussion from a forensic point of view, as forensics is ultimately where DNA samples/fingerprints end up. If you say DNA samples are being taken routinely to identify a suspect then I agree that’s insane. If you’re saying that DNA samples shouldn’t be taken at all because they can’t be used as identifiers the way booking procedure uses fingerprints, then I don’t really agree - they should be taken whenever consented to, or whenever there is a compelling enough reason that a judge would issue a court order to do so. If this is on booking, then so be it - either the person agreed or the court mandated it for good (I hope) reason. They should only be tested if the crime scene yields enough DNA to make a profile comparison possible, IMO, and should be destroyed once the case is completed.
I think we’re on the same side when it comes to national “every-baby-gets-its-DNA-profile-here” databases though. I don’t want 'em either. Yeck. shudder
but it would be duplactive. there already exists a system where folks ae identified. works now. why would we decide to create yet another system, one more expensive to do the same thing?
again- I am not against DNA testing done post conviction, w/a judges orders or the persons consent. Just as a routine for booking.
(and no one has addressed the expense. it’s asking for a duplicate system to be “eventually” created, and at huge financial costs where there already exists a cheaper non invasive system that already works. Insane.)
Playing Devil’s Advocate, I would have to say that DNA would be far more reliable. I’ve heard that fingerprint analysis is more art than science. And it’s cost may well level out as technology advances.
FTR, I am opposed to the measure, and voted against it here in California. But I am hard-pressed to come up with a better reason than “I don’t like the idea and it’s scares me.”
some day it may be less expensive? how on earth could it ever be less expensive than rolling ink onto fingers? yes, fingerprint analysis in some cases are more art than science, however there are programs that compare fingerprints (and for the most part for the identification issue, that’s really not an issue - something is either not at all the same or pretty damn close - if you give the name “spooje esq” and I can eyeball it and see readily it ain’t even close, I’ve determined you’re giving the wrong name and more care will be exercised.
And Any science, including DNA is subject to human frailities. Cases of malfeasence in DNA labs, human error, and out right fraud.
Whether the world is “safe” is not the issue. I’m not arguing that surrendering our civil liberties won’t reduce crime, but there is a pendulum that swings between security and liberty. I have no doubt that a draconian police state would be better able to keep crime under control; the question is whether you want to trade liberty for security, and the general philosophy of the United States has always been that we do not.
This is the lamest of arguments. Who cares what the founding fathers wanted, they’ve been dead for 200 years. They were in favor of only land owning, white males voting. They wrote slavery into the new government and wanted their government funded off of tarriffs. Should we go back to that? It is what the fathers wanted.
And what you think of a hassel may not be a hassel to others. It takes longer to fingerprint someone than it does to get a bucal swab. And what do when someone has worn their fingerprints off? Should we hold them until they grow back?
point being that civil liberties (the bill of rights) ae the basis of our society, our country, our system of law and government. you think it’s irrelevant or lame? got it. lots will disagree with you.
of course we’ll disagree about whats a hassel - I believe I even said that. that’s why we then go back to what’s legal or not, what’s practical or not, what’s reasonable or not. and why I’m saying yet again - we’ve got a system of identification that works, has a huge data base already present, and is cheap to use. why add to that with something more intrusive and far more expensive? I see no rational reason. the fact that you personally don’t mind and would find it less bothersome than a fingerprint isn’t particularly convincing.
Imagine the police bringing you in, not because they found a match to your dna but because your dna closely matches that of the perp and they figure, it must be a relative of yours and begin questioning you on which relative it could be?
Eh. Having experienced what police officers are willing/able to do to a person without a conviction I can’t agree with this. Police have alot of power just based on probable cause in my experience and assuming that not breaking the law will protect you from being treated badly by police is false, it will just make it less likely to happen.
Whoa, read into things much? The bill of rights is a set of ammendments to a larger and more important document, the US Constitution, which gives us more rights than the BoR ever will. I’ve never said it’s irrelevant or lame. What I said was lame was your reference to the founding fathers. I’m thankful for what they did, but what they wanted in their time and what we want are two different things. To claim that we should or shouldn’t do something because it’s what they would or wouldn’t have wanted is assinine. They are fucking dead and they don’t live in our times.
