# Would you submit DNA in a voluntary genetic dragnet? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362 "2009-08-04T23:55:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/161 "2009-08-11T18:31:37Z")
About 150 people have been released from deathrow because they were found innocent. That is presumably the trials given the most care. Any system is flawed. Your best chance is to stay clear of it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/162 "2009-08-11T18:52:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > They get a court order. Based on a refusal of a search? No, they don’t. > [@US v. Fuentes](#): > > The mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches#cite_note-Holcomb_2005-2). > [@](#): > > Personally, if _I_ were a cop, I’d try to leverage this up until a court order for a _forced_ DNA sample No offense, but it is abundantly clear from the above that you are not a cop. Also not a lawyer (neither am I). Nor are you someone who understands his rights. I am, which may explain why I would submit the sample and you would not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/163 "2009-08-11T19:01:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Based on a refusal of a search? No, they don’t. > [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches#cite_note-Holcomb_2005-2). > No offense, but it is abundantly clear from the above that you are not a cop. Also not a lawyer (neither am I). Nor are you someone who understands his rights. > > I am, which may explain why I would submit the sample and you would not. > > Regards, > Shodan As is obvious, even to you, the point was that having limited their pool from 100 (or 1000, or whatever) equal ‘suspects’ who cannot possibly all be tailed, for both logistical reasons and reasons of justification, to 10 people who they _can_ dog like crazy, they will undoubtedly be able to _find_ justification for whatever search they want. Or, as you notably don’t comment on, will be able to just pick your DNA up behind you and test _that_ without your consent. So this rebuttal of yours is no rebuttal at all - we both know that once the lens has been focused on these people (based on the illusion of evidence, not _actual_ evidence), then they will be the focus of an investigation that will _inevitably_ cough up court orders as needed. You know, it occurs to me that if this dragnet is large enough, and I were the criminal, and I was really _quite_ clever, I _would_ submit to the dragnet, and bank on the fact that they can’t _possibly_ test everyone they sample. And then I would laugh to myself as the cops harrangue innocent men. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/164 "2009-08-11T19:10:34Z")
No way in the world would I consent to voluntary DNA submission. Furthermore, I would remove the shackles from my basement walls, and pour bleach down the floor drain. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/165 "2009-08-11T19:11:45Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > This is my thought as well. Seeing it verbalized so well makes me ask another question: Irrespective of the rightness or wrongess of the police’s motive’s here, is it not more **prudent** –in the short term–to give the sample? After all, by not doing so you are opening yourself up to harassment and suspicion, and though you have every right to do so on constitutional grounds, you will still likely end up paying a price for it. Sure, it’s probably more _prudent_ to roll over and take it. But you could say the same thing about an armed robber. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/166 "2009-08-11T19:12:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As is obvious, even to you, the point was that having limited their pool from 100 (or 1000, or whatever) equal ‘suspects’ who cannot possibly all be tailed, for both logistical reasons and reasons of justification, to 10 people who they _can_ dog like crazy, they will undoubtedly be able to _find_ justification for whatever search they want. No, actually what is obvious to me is that your statement that they could get a court order is complete bullshit. Now you are back-peddling like mad. Unfortunately - > [@](#): > > So this rebuttal of yours is no rebuttal at all - we both know that once the lens has been focused on these people (based on the illusion of evidence, not _actual_ evidence), then they will be the focus of an investigation that will _inevitably_ cough up court orders as needed. Well, perhaps you think you know this, but I don’t, and I suspect no one else with any reasonable grasp of the Constitution does either. Could you produce a cite showing that judges always grant court orders to the police based entirely on illusory evidence? Thanks in advance. > [@](#): > > You know, it occurs to me that if this dragnet is large enough, and I were the criminal, and I was really _quite_ clever, I _would_ submit to the dragnet, and bank on the fact that they can’t _possibly_ test everyone they sample. And then I would laugh to myself as the cops harrangue innocent men. In other words, what you said earlier about the impossibility of anyone being stupid enough to submit a sample if they were guilty was also wrong. There is someone that stupid. Imagine that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/167 "2009-08-11T20:16:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The dragnet being voluntary, it seems to be a reasonable assumption that the actual criminal will **NOT** participate. > > This being the case, it is literally impossible that the dragnet will actually catch the criminal through its stated method, that of rounding up DNA evidence and comparing it to the DNA they’ve got. That **can’t** be the goal and anybody who claims otherwise is lying. Not true. Criminals are often stupid. > [@begbert2](#): > > So, what’s the goal? Why, it’s to create a smaller group of people to investigate. To be precise, _the police are fabricating suspects_. There are too many people in the area to focus on them all, so they’re creating a smaller group that they can focus on. Even if that’s the case, they know just as well as you do that its a shot in the dark. I trust most police will act accordingly. Some may be bad, but I’ll take my chances to catch a killer. Besides, who’s to say that a relative of the killer, if he has one, wouldnt give their DNA and through similarity, the police can trace the DNA to a possible familial match. The Unabomber’s brother cracked his case, the same thing could happen here. And again, just asking you for DNA doesn’t hurt you. I certainly don’t believe in the likelihood of the nightmare scenarios you posed to be close to happening > [@begbert2](#): > > Sounds innocent, right? Except, for a cop to think that this is a valid investigation tactic, he has to mentally associate refraining from handing over DNA with being the criminal. That is, the act of not giving up your blood is an act linked with criminals. Or he can think like you and merely believe that some people consider their rights in this case sacrosanct. God knows theres a lot of people who think like you. > [@begbert2](#): > > And you know how cops treat criminals. Guilty until proven innocent. (And possibly not even then.) Really now, I’m not going to keep responding to these assumptions and pointless attacks :dubious: > [@begbert2](#): > > Currently the only reason the hyperbolic situations I gave in answer to the simplistic “faster and cheaper are always better!” argument aren’t happening is because the courts and the cops are adversarial - some dumbass cop might think this is a good idea, but a court would never (or should never) think that refraining from voluntarily giving DNA is a sign of guilt. If we let this slide down the slippery slopes to having the majority of the populace accept that people are guilty until proven innocent…well, that’s when we start just shooting suspects. Had I actually made that argument, you might have someone to debate with. > [@begbert2](#): > > Dude. The whole point of the dragnet is to round up a handful of suspects. You think the cops won’t start questioning the refusers? You have an odd way of assuming “round up” and “questioning” are the same thing. I have no doubt that in this case, the cops would question all 100 people. They might ask additional questions of the 7, but given that the law is on their side and the cops can’t compel them to come down to the station since they are not suspects, I’d hardly consider it an unbearable affront that they’d be asked a few more questions. So yeah, let them question the refusers. If you cannot be bothered to answer an additional few questions over a murder, then I have no time to waste with you > [@begbert2](#): > > I thought you just denounced arresting and shooting everybody in sight. Make up your mind. Are you incapable of seeing gray? Is there no middle ground or compromise? It is best to be efficient and should always be done first, within the law. That means questioning people and asking for their sample voluntarily, all legal tactics. Even if the police have no suspects, it is efficient and legal for them to go around asking people for help voluntarily. If you want to assume every time I say “efficient is good” means a police shooting gallery, then you’re simply being insane. For the last time, its good that the police decided to use the cheap, easy, and efficient way of collecting information, in this case asking for DNA. Then they can move on to harder and more time-consuming and less efficient methods. And they can do all of this within the boundaries of the law > [@begbert2](#): > > -Hey, it just occured to me to ask, what do you think of the idea of rounding up everyone who owns a firearm for questioning, anytime a crime is committed? If they’re innocent, they surely won’t find this to be a problem or an incursion on their rights… I would have a problem with rounding people up without probable cause anywhere. But I would not have a problem with the police questioning all of the firearms owners if that is how the victim was killed. Innocent or guilty, nobody should find a problem with the police coming to your door and asking questions in the course of an investigation. You are free to answer or not. But if the act of interrupting whatever you’re doing and answering the door to talk to someone is too much for a person to bear, then they should really be living on an island by themselves. Its just questioning, deal with it > [@begbert2](#): > > Extra police attention can very, very easily _be_ harrassment. Denial of that is wishful-thinking-happy-thoughts-deny-reality territory. Assuming all extra police attention is definitely harassment is also wishful-thinking-happy-thoughts-deny-reality territory. It can be one or the other. Your assumption needs to be based on facts, not fears. It is equally likely the police would simply do a background check on you without your knowledge, and, finding nothing, move on > [@begbert2](#): > > And “make them seem more suspicious than others” and “imply they’re guilty” are pretty near synonymous. Not in a way that their treatment under the law is the same. Its not synonymous at all when you factor in that the police cant drag you off to a holding cell and interrogate you for hours for the former, but they might be able to in the latter (for example, if a person was found at a crime scene) > [@begbert2](#): > > The DNA submitted **won’t help**. You will not catch this criminal through DNA analysis. The dna is nothing more than a threat to hold over the heads of the honest citizens. As I said, criminals are often stupid. And familial ties may give them away. Threat of what? “Confess or we’ll give your DNA to the insurance companies and you’ll never get life insurance!”? What is it you think they’ll do? Do you think the police in general are in the business of framing people they have DNA of but cannot prove guilty? That’s a conspiracy worthy of some other board, but not GD > [@begbert2](#): > > Suppose the police asked you to hand over your car to them for a month, so they could examine it closely for evidence. If you’re deemed innocent, you’ll get back the car, eventually. (If not, obviously, you’ll be arrested.) Will you jump at the chance to “help the police”? If not, why not? You’re suspicious, aren’t you! You’re a crook!! > > And if that doesn’t work, the police will be moving into your house for a month. What? You don’t like that? What are you hiding?! Unlike a few strands of DNA, I need my car. Giving it up for a month is an unacceptable hassle to me, even to solve a murder. The only way I’d do it is if I knew the victim. I would not have any problems with people who actually do hand over their car though, as you seem to have with me. If they want to, good for them. In this case, I’ll gladly look like the crook Seriously, do you have a speed other than “Stop” and “RUN!!!”? There is a level of cooperation I’m willing to give the police. DNA does not register on my non-cooperation list so I’m happy to do it. > [@begbert2](#): > > These cops are desperate. _Sure_ it’ll be a casual chat with them. Right. Nothing to worry about at all. Again, baseless assumptions > [@begbert2](#): > > (As I said earlier, I would be unsurprised to be convicted of the crime on the basis of my disrespect for the dragnet.) Well that’s your belief and I cant help you with that > [@begbert2](#): > > My answer to your question was that the CONSTITUTION thinks that I shouldn’t feel obliged to help the cops arrest me. Have you no respect for the laws of our country? The Constitution is regulating me giving something to the cops voluntarily now? Tell me what laws I’ve violated by voluntarily giving them my DNA > [@begbert2](#): > > If you can’t get that, then there’s no way you’d get the slightly complex answer I have to a person’s moral obligation to be punished for their crimes. So I’ll just make it easy for you. Yes, I think that if I do evil, I should get away with it. Because I am an evil sociopath! Bwahahahaha! I’m saddened that by this time, I cannot tell if you’re kidding or not ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/168 "2009-08-11T20:19:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But you see, as you didn’t commit the crime, you providing your DNA to the Police will not help them at all. In fact, them spending valuable CSI time and lab resources will hurt the investigation. It won’t “help narrow down the list of suspects” as there are 300 million suspects, and lowering that number to 299,999,999 won’t help. > > Now if it’s a true “locked room murder” and there’s only a handful of dudes that could have possibly committed it, then the Police can get a warrant. At that point in time, you should cooperate voluntarily (after consulting your attorney) as you _are_ a legitimate suspect. Like I told berg, a family member may give away the suspect accidently by submitting DNA. Or through some other circumstance. Plus, criminals are often stupid Lowering 300 million by 1 WILL help, just not by much. But if we take this topic to be the average, then about half will and half wont. Lowering 100 by 50 helps a lot more than 1 out of 300 million ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/169 "2009-08-11T20:35:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, actually what is obvious to me is that your statement that they could get a court order is complete bullshit. Now you are back-peddling like mad. Unfortunately - No, I _always_ meant that the illusory evidence of refusing the dragnet would be the _first step_ of a investigation that would dig for evidence that may, or may not, be substantive, with the goal of building a case that would eventually be sufficent to grant a court order, if such was deemed necessary. Which is after all why I said > [@me](#): > > Everybody does something suspicious in some regard; everybody makes little mistakes in their stories that leave their ‘alibi’ full of holes. In no time at all the police will be able to scrape up reasonable suspicion to justify a warrant. I mention this lest anybody be fooled by your bullshit strawmanning of my position. > [@Shodan](#): > > Well, perhaps you think you know this, but I don’t, and I suspect no one else with any reasonable grasp of the Constitution does either. > > Could you produce a cite showing that judges always grant court orders to the police based entirely on illusory evidence? Thanks in advance. Burn that strawman! Burn that strawman! Because you know that my _actual_ argument is **right** , and thus, impervious to your desire to not be proven wrong in any way. > [@Shodan](#): > > In other words, what you said earlier about the impossibility of anyone being stupid enough to submit a sample if they were guilty was also wrong. There is someone that stupid. > > Imagine that. Oooh, you’re so clever, calling me stupid in such a clever way! Such a manly MAN man, you are! On the pretense that somebody is around who’s interested in _thinking_ rather than retorting first and asking questions later, there are clearly three ways that the crook could be before the investigation: A) Among the people in the neighborhood. B) Not among the people in the neighborhood. Now, for A-type criminals, the dragnet is the best thing in the _world_ for them. It will waste the police’s time and maybe money collecting a huge pile of DNA samples and then maybe halfheartedly testing a handlful of them, and it will create a nice pile of suspicious people for the police to waste their time harassing while the real crook kicks back in complete safety. But what about type B criminals, who will be presented with the dragnet? There are two ways they can go: B1) They give up their DNA. B2) They don’t give up their DNA. Now, on first blush, and I admit I fell for this myself, there is no _way_ the crook should participate in the dragnet! It would be giving himself up! He would be arrested in minutes! Of course, that’s the thinking that the dragnet is _based_ on. The cops aren’t doing this for the sheer malicious purpose of justifying harassing the innocent; they’re doing it to box the crook into a smaller corner that they can give a thorouch search without going to the effort of declaring martial law and impounding everybody. This is why they will harass those people brave or stubborn or suspicious or foolish enough to refuse the dragnet; because they are certain that one of them is the crook. Cops harass crooks; it’s their _job_. But, what if the crook _does_ give his DNA? Well, it’s certainly a risk. While it’s pretty much certain that not _all_ the of the DNA taken will actually be tested, there’s a chance that your sample might be, and at that point you’d be screwed. But then, you’ll be screwed if the cops start following you around with a cotton swab, too. So, yeah. At that point it’s a calculated risk - the more people who participate in the dragnet, the safer it becomes to join them, and the riskier it becomes not to participate. So yeah. A _very_ clever criminal might assess the risks and decide it’s better to be sampled and have that sample ignored, or to be among the people the police actively suspect. But it’s an assessment. And of course, the _smart_ criminal who leaves no evidence whatsoever probably doesn’t commit his perfect crime in his own neghborhood, so he just can sit back and point and laugh as the dragnet leads the cops astray. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/170 "2009-08-11T20:39:12Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Sure, it’s probably more _prudent_ to roll over and take it. But you could say the same thing about an armed robber. I wasn’t saying that I thought rolling over and taking it was best for society, but rather that for any single person it is possibly the most pruden course. If you think that most people are going to accede to the request, then, in the short run, the odds are that you are better off doing so to. If you think that most people will not accede, then you should not. And, in the long run, everyone is better off if people don’t submit under the circumstances I have named. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/171 "2009-08-11T20:40:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Often they do…In 80% of cases, the initial contact between the victim and killer is within 1/4 mile of the victim’s residence. … _"the initial contac_t" sure- but that doesn’t mean that the killer LIVES within 1/4 mile. Just contact. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/172 "2009-08-11T20:44:42Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I wasn’t saying that I thought rolling over and taking it was best for society, but rather that for any single person it is possibly the most pruden course. If you think that most people are going to accede to the request, then, in the short run, the odds are that you are better off doing so to. If you think that most people will not accede, then you should not. And, in the long run, everyone is better off if people don’t submit under the circumstances I have named. Very prisoner’s dilemmaish. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/173 "2009-08-11T20:49:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As is obvious, even to you, the point was that having limited their pool from 100 (or 1000, or whatever) equal ‘suspects’ who cannot possibly all be tailed, for both logistical reasons and reasons of justification, to 10 people who they _can_ dog like crazy, they will undoubtedly be able to _find_ justification for whatever search they want. Or, as you notably don’t comment on, will be able to just pick your DNA up behind you and test _that_ without your consent. You are making two assumptions: 1. That only 10% will refuse. As shown here, it’s more like 50%. 2. That the police are dumb enough to believe that it can only be someone from that poll of 100. The Police won’t make either assumption. If our Local PD did, they’d never get around to testing, as I would contact the: Deputy Chief ACLU My Councilman The Civil Grand Jury and so forth. The whole thing would be stopped in a day or two. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/174 "2009-08-11T21:15:21Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Not true. Criminals are often stupid. Sure. Though, if they’re _that_ stupid, why has it come to the dragnet? Clearly they’ve managed to avoid suspicion so far… Though as has been noted, I’ve changed my position on this. Whether it would be wise to participate in the dragnet would depend to a large degree on the actual risk that your DNA will actually be tested. It seems not everybody here is in agreement on how cheap and easy that actually is to do. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Even if that’s the case, they know just as well as you do that its a shot in the dark. I trust most police will act accordingly. Some may be bad, but I’ll take my chances to catch a killer. Besides, who’s to say that a relative of the killer, if he has one, wouldnt give their DNA and through similarity, the police can trace the DNA to a possible familial match. The Unabomber’s brother cracked his case, the same thing could happen here. And again, just asking you for DNA doesn’t hurt you. I certainly don’t believe in the likelihood of the nightmare scenarios you posed to be close to happening The thing I get most out of this is “I trust …” and “I certainly don’t believe …”. Your position is based on the assumption that the police are on the complete up-and-up, and that the purpose of the dragnet is in _fact_ to check all the samples they collect, rather than to use them as a crude guilt/innocence indicator. I find it highly implausible that the purpose of this net is to actually catch the crook _in_ the net - the price difference between taking the sample and testing the sample is too great. I think it’s much more plausible that the net would be cheaply cast, and then they’d ignore the contents of it and chase the fish that slipped through the holes. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Or he can think like you and merely believe that some people consider their rights in this case sacrosanct. God knows theres a lot of people who think like you. If he seriously thought this was likely of a person, he wouldn’t have bothered with a dragnet. There’s no point in doing anything that you feel would not limit the suspects to a small, investigatable pool. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > You have an odd way of assuming “round up” and “questioning” are the same thing. I have no doubt that in this case, the cops would question all 100 people. They might ask additional questions of the 7, but given that the law is on their side and the cops can’t compel them to come down to the station since they are not suspects, I’d hardly consider it an unbearable affront that they’d be asked a few more questions. So yeah, let them question the refusers. If you cannot be bothered to answer an additional few questions over a murder, then I have no time to waste with you I don’t believe that for one hairy instant that any case important enough to inspire a _dragnet_, which you apparently still believe will involve the _tremendous_ expense of testing every sample they take; I don’t believe that they’re just going to say “we have three guys who slammed the door in our faces; let’s just ask them a couple of more questions and then just give up if they don’t confess.” Yeah. Right. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Are you incapable of seeing gray? Is there no middle ground or compromise? It is best to be efficient and should always be done first, within the law. That means questioning people and asking for their sample voluntarily, all legal tactics. Even if the police have no suspects, it is efficient and legal for them to go around asking people for help voluntarily. If you want to assume every time I say “efficient is good” means a police shooting gallery, then you’re simply being insane. As has been repeatedly noted, testing these samples enough that the samples _themselves_ would help is neither efficient or cheap. What _is_ efficient and cheap is tagging suspects for increased investigation based on nothing more than thier refusal to participate. Personally, I assume that whenever you say “efficient is good”, you’re failing to grip that the point of the dragnet isn’t the samples. It’s the leftovers, who will be given increased police attention. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > For the last time, its good that the police decided to use the cheap, easy, and efficient way of collecting information, in this case asking for DNA. Then they can move on to harder and more time-consuming and less efficient methods. And they can do all of this within the boundaries of the law For the last, time, DNA testing everyone in town isn’t the cheap, easy, and efficient way of collecting information. Pretending to is. At which point, they’ll resume the harder and more time-consuming and less efficient methods of trying to squeeze a convitiction out of the refusers. Whether this will de done ethically or not is impossible to determine at this point in the hypothetical - but the fact that they believe that filtering the suspects through a dragnet is a valid investigation tactic doesn’t inspire confidence in me. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I would have a problem with rounding people up without probable cause anywhere. But I would not have a problem with the police questioning all of the firearms owners if that is how the victim was killed. Innocent or guilty, nobody should find a problem with the police coming to your door and asking questions in the course of an investigation. You are free to answer or not. But if the act of interrupting whatever you’re doing and answering the door to talk to someone is too much for a person to bear, then they should really be living on an island by themselves. Its just questioning, deal with it I’m fine with answering a few questions. For the rest, like asking for my blood, you can kindly stop pretending that none of it’s any more intrusive than asking a few questions. Thank you. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Assuming all extra police attention is definitely harassment is also wishful-thinking-happy-thoughts-deny-reality territory. It can be one or the other. Your assumption needs to be based on facts, not fears. It is equally likely the police would simply do a background check on you without your knowledge, and, finding nothing, move on The FACT is, either the cops are incredibly stupid, or the actual point of the dragnet is to filter out a few suspects for increasted investigation, which will be conducted with the idea that these people are uncooperative and have something to hide in mind. And the FACT is, that sometimes it’s not comfortable to have the cops thinking that you’re a criminal while they’re invesitgating a murder. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Threat of what? “Confess or we’ll give your DNA to the insurance companies and you’ll never get life insurance!”? What is it you think they’ll do? Do you think the police in general are in the business of framing people they have DNA of but cannot prove guilty? That’s a conspiracy worthy of some other board, but not GD Nice strawman. I think there’s good reason to be afraid both of police harassment, _and_ of suspicion by your neighbors if you turn down the dragnet. And it’s not comfortable to be suspected by your neighbors. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Unlike a few strands of DNA, I need my car. Giving it up for a month is an unacceptable hassle to me, even to solve a murder. The only way I’d do it is if I knew the victim. I would not have any problems with people who actually do hand over their car though, as you seem to have with me. If they want to, good for them. In this case, I’ll gladly look like the crook > > Seriously, do you have a speed other than “Stop” and “RUN!!!”? There is a level of cooperation I’m willing to give the police. DNA does not register on my non-cooperation list so I’m happy to do it. You seem to only have the speed “STOP!!!”. You don’t believe for the hairiest tiny instant that anybody could be bothered by the idea of giving a dna sample. You don’t believe for the barest moment that a police investigation could be uncomfortable. It never even _crosses your mind_ that the DNA collection itself might be a sham, intended only to find out who is cooperative and who isn’t. None of this _ever_ crosses your mind. _Regardless_ of how much hyperbole I try to hit you with to try and avoid you saying, “Oh, it’s only a blood sample. Oh, it’s only an interrogation. Oh, it’s only a warrant for your arrest. What are you whining about?” > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Again, baseless assumptions It’s completely false to call the idea that police might be less than gentle with a suspected criminal a “baseless assumption”. It’s definitely based on _something_ and that something isn’t as imaginary as the ideal that all cops are perfect angels. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > The Constitution is regulating me giving something to the cops voluntarily now? Tell me what laws I’ve violated by voluntarily giving them my DNA Keep up - you are asking me about what you think my obligation is to deliberately self-incriminate. The constitution is quite explicit on this subject - I am _not_ so obligated. Or this could be an attempt to bait-and-switch and deliberately mischaracterize me. I can’t tell. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m saddened that by this time, I cannot tell if you’re kidding or not I’m not kidding that I think that f you can’t get [that the fifth amendment exists], then there’s no way you’d get the slightly complex answer I have to a person’s moral obligation to be punished for their crimes. As for the rest, here’s a little hint: in real life, nobody actually says “Bwahahahaha!”. (In real life it starts, “Mwa”.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/175 "2009-08-11T21:21:33Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _"the initial contac_t" sure- but that doesn’t mean that the killer LIVES within 1/4 mile. Just contact. I will repeat, then, that the OP specified IN the neighborhood rather than LIVING in the neighborhood. > [@Begbert2](#): > > No, I always meant that the illusory evidence of refusing the dragnet would be the first step of a investigation that would dig for evidence that may, or may not, be substantive, with the goal of building a case that would eventually be sufficent to grant a court order, if such was deemed necessary. I am still awaiting a cite. Please demonstrate that the police can always get a judge to issue a court order simply by investigating. > [@](#): > > On the pretense that somebody is around who’s interested in thinking rather than retorting first and asking questions later, there are clearly three ways that the crook could be before the investigation: > > A) Among the people in the neighborhood. > B) Not among the people in the neighborhood. I’m sorry, but this is too easy. First accuse me of retorting without thinking. Then tell me the three ways - A and B. > [@](#): > > There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count, and those who can’t. 😃 > [@](#): > > Oooh, you’re so clever, calling me stupid in such a clever way! Such a manly MAN man, you are! It was a cheap shot, you’re right. And I apologize. But I’m a weak man. Don’t tempt me like that. You’re going to have to start challenging me and not simply hand over the gimme putts. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/176 "2009-08-11T21:23:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You are making two assumptions: > > 1. That only 10% will refuse. As shown here, it’s more like 50%. Meh, this is a crazy webside, not a random sample of the population. Plus, we don’t have neighbors here who will whisper about the fact we spat in the cops eye - or _cops_ here who will be doing a hair more than whispering if we refuse. If a cop believed that only have the population would participation, it would hardly seem worth the effort of running the dragnet at all. There would still be too many suspects to individually follow up in detail, and the crook could easily just refuse to participate. So it would be time and money wasted unless they seriously think that most people would participate. > [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. That the police are dumb enough to believe that it can only be someone from that poll of 100. But the entire dragnet is _based_ on that presumption, is it not? Either they thinking that the crook will actually be caught in the dragnet by a DNA match, or they think that creating suspects by a process of elimination is a valid approach. If there is a serious belief that the crook is outside the range of the dragnet, than the first case is a waste of money and the second is unjustifiable harassment. So I guess it’s time to get out your address book and start writing letters. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/177 "2009-08-11T21:25:40Z")
I wanted to get this one in, too - > [@gonzomax](#): > > About 150 people have been released from deathrow because they were found innocent. That is presumably the trials given the most care. Any system is flawed. Your best chance is to stay clear of it. What you seem to be saying here is that you shouldn’t submit your DNA, because so many people have been exonerated by it. It’s rather like **begbert2** ’s fiendishly clever idea of staying out of the clutches of the evil police by handing over voluntarily the one kind of evidence that would establish guilt beyond question, on the chance that they won’t really check. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/178 "2009-08-11T21:38:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I wanted to get this one in, too -What you seem to be saying here is that you shouldn’t submit your DNA, because so many people have been exonerated by it. > > It’s rather like **begbert2** ’s fiendishly clever idea of staying out of the clutches of the evil police by handing over voluntarily the one kind of evidence that would establish guilt beyond question, on the chance that they won’t really check. > > Regards, > Shodan And here I thought he was saying that maybe, just _maybe_, getting the police suspicious of you by spitting in their eye during a dragnet had a chance of getting your butt arrested despite your innocence specifically because police might act overzealously and trump up their erroneous suspicions into a conviction. And yeah, it would be a fiendish plan to dodge the dragnet by getting caught in it. Heck of a gamble, certianly. But as noted, for sufficiently large dragnets it becomes increasingly unlikely they’ll actually test all the DNA they gather. (Though obviously his _best_ approach is to not be in the dragnet in the first place.) ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/179 "2009-08-12T00:39:18Z")
Some cites about possibly sketchy (or not) activity on the part of the police before or after obtaining samples. No idea if they’re any good, but they seemed relevant to the discussion. [http://brian.carnell.com/articles/1999/gattaca-the-documentary](http://brian.carnell.com/articles/1999/gattaca-the-documentary) > **[Law Enforcement and Genetic Data](https://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/law-enforcement-and-genetic-data/)** > > Framing the Issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC8rd6onHts Watch "Law Enforcement and Genetic Data: A Discussion for Journalists" with writer Sarah > **[Invasion of Privacy](https://books.google.com/books?id=STJjDJJsXT0C&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=dna%2Bdragnet%2Bharassment&source=bl&ots=ivRhTEv6DP&sig=djbircU7Jsnzv6zEXOTNcSzV6zc&hl=en&ei=zgqCSpTZNIuoMbqPqZsL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=dna%20dragnet%20harassment&f=false)** > > An authoritative analysis of one of the most revered rights of peoples and cultures around the world—privacy.Invasion of Privacy: A Reference Handbook chronicles the most pressing privacy issues and dilemmas from around the world from the 17th... [http://www.readthehook.com/Stories/2004/07/29/newsOverzealousRapistDragn.html](http://www.readthehook.com/Stories/2004/07/29/newsOverzealousRapistDragn.html) Once of the cites says there’s only been ~20 dragnets in the US, but it doesn’t say when or where.:mad: Some of the claims of harassment seem to be a bit of a stretch. I have a memory of watching some news segment on someone being harassed pretty severely, but nothing is popping up. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362/180 "2009-08-12T01:35:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Meh, this is a crazy webside, not a random sample of the population. Plus, we don’t have neighbors here who will whisper about the fact we spat in the cops eye - or _cops_ here who will be doing a hair more than whispering if we refuse. > > If a cop believed that only have the population would participation, it would hardly seem worth the effort of running the dragnet at all. There would still be too many suspects to individually follow up in detail, and the crook could easily just refuse to participate. So it would be time and money wasted unless they seriously think that most people would participate. > > But the entire dragnet is _based_ on that presumption, is it not? Either they thinking that the crook will actually be caught in the dragnet by a DNA match, or they think that creating suspects by a process of elimination is a valid approach. If there is a serious belief that the crook is outside the range of the dragnet, than the first case is a waste of money and the second is unjustifiable harassment. > > So I guess it’s time to get out your address book and start writing letters. Well, the thing is- this hasn’t happened. It was a “what if” on the part of the OP. And, like I said, no professional Police Dept would act in such a way- they’d know it’d be a waste of resources, useless for finding the perp, and edging into violations of civil rights. So as for "_But the entire dragnet is based on that presumption, is it not?" The answer is- there’s_ no such dragnet\*\* and there won;t be any such dragnet by any professional Police Force in the USA. Thus "_Either they thinking that the crook will actually be caught in the dragnet by a DNA match, or they think that creating suspects by a process of elimination is a valid approach._ is a specious conclusion based upon the \*\*invalid hypothesis \*\*that a decent Police Dept would pull this crap. Now sure, it has happened a few times before even in the USA, but as Ruken’s third cite shows- it has only once actually resulted in a case being solved, and that was likely because the sample was so small (25), the police really did have some solid evidence it was one of those dudes. And as the cites go on- in a good number of the few cases detailed- the police was changed or the Courts ruled against it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-submit-dna-in-a-voluntary-genetic-dragnet/505362.md?page=10)