Example, a murder is committed somewhere. On the victim is found a hair whose source is not easily identifiable. The prosecution assumes that it was from the attacker. They sequence it and search it against a DNA database they have been given access to. It matches you…you’re on trial for your life.
But, unfortunately for you, you simply brushed up against this person on the bus or sidewalk. You have no other connection to this person. Good luck proving you weren’t there and it wasn’t you. We need a higher standard for when police are allowed to use this kind of stuff because it’s been proven over and over again that police and justice departments want convictions…they don’t care so much if they catch the right person. In absence of constitutional protections, your best bet is to not be in the database.
I’ll roll the dice on your example happily. This comes under the category “the flimsiest of evidence” possible–you have supplied, in fact, the airtight defense my lawyers would offer to the jury, which easily exceeds the “reasonable doubt” standard.
You become a suspect or person of interest at that point, not on trial for your life. You become part of an investigation that may or may not lead to further action. Perhaps since you were close the the victim they would like to know about what they were doing at the time of your contact with them. This would be a normal thing to investigate, questioning people who were in close contact prior to the crime. Maybe you could tell them something about who they said they were going to see next or you could just shut up and say nothing.
Its not much different than some random person saying they saw you near the victim prior to the crime. That’s pretty flimsy evidence as well, but its how they investigate crimes.
It’s almost like you haven’t been paying attention at all to reality. But I suspect it has more to do with the privilege that comes with the color of your skin and economic status. You simply don’t believe it could happen to you.
Most of the recent news is about people from years ago being set free because of incorrect use of DNA evidence. Of which even a public defender now would now bring up as it not being enough to convict on. Things change with the times, who wants to convict anymore based only upon DNA evidence and possibly face a huge lawsuit later on.
If the DA is going to railroad someone they can do so without having to rely on DNA evidence alone, as they have done in the past. They can do it the old fashion way and beat a confession out of you.
It’s a done deal, with advantages as well as hazards. Your response is to refuse to recognize it as a done deal and to refuse to acknowledge the advantages? Savvy move
Hey…you asked for opinions. Why are you getting pissy?
I think your’e gambling with you genetic information and once that bell is rung it can’t be unrung. If you don’t give a shit about possible consequences or think they don’t apply to you, Bob’s your uncle.
If you want to start a fight over it, ask a Mod to move it to GD or the Pit.
Not familiar with this phrase. But then you lost me with savvy move.
It’s not that I never agreed with your argument, but like @Roger_That I consider the genie to be out of the bottle at this point. When it first came out it was abused by prosecutors as the new definitive thing, which has since been proven to be incorrect. Its now part of a handful of tools that the investigators can use to build a case, just not the magic bullet that it was first believed (and presented) to be. And like any tool it can be misused or used for good, it doesn’t mean you don’t use it.
