I don’t trust the government, at any level. Eternal vigilance and all that.
I work for the government, and I don’t trust the government.
Go get your warrant if you want my DNA.
Would you advocate asking for DNA samples and fingerprints of everyone in the US (voluntarily) to speed up investigations and help investigating stalled cases? It would seem to be a logical extension of the voluntary dragnets.
I don’t have my DNA or finger prints on file and I’d like to keep it that way. If I could be sure that my information would only be used for a specific case and then destroyed I might consider volunteering my information for a specific case. But history has shown that doesn’t happen, and therefore I’d never voluntarily give my information to the government on any level. There are too many chances for abuse.
General question for the floor …
In light of this article, if a family member of yours said they were considering volunteering their DNA permanently, would you try to convince them otherwise?
Actually, I would guess that you only need about 5% to volunteer (or be mandated, eg. by taking swabs of all convicts and keeping a permanent record) to make such a process worthwhile. Think: if the process zeroes the search in on any of the, say, 20 people who are genetically closest to you, that then provides a very feasible-sized group for police to look into alibis and whereabouts.
Since 6.5% of the US population has a felony record (these arguably also being the 6.5% who are most likely to know or be related to an unknown future murderer), the database may already be big enough to narrow any investigation down to at least the correct extended family. Who does not welcome this?
Sorry, that link seems to have suddenly and mysteriously broken. Here’s the PDF.
In summary, the murder of a Cardiff woman in 1988 was recently solved when a 14 year old convict’s DNA provided a near, but not exact, match to DNA found at the old crime scene. This allowed police to look at his family, resulting in the conviction of his uncle in 2003. (Three men had been convicted in 1990, unsoundly - they were released in 1992). The same techniques have also allowed missing El Salvadorean children to be reunited with their families.
If these techniques become quicker and more accurate and more than 5% of the population’s markers are stored, I would guess that almost any serious crime with DNA evidence would lead to a DNA match within a fortnight to someone who must then at least explain what their DNA was doing at the crime scene. Would this not be a good thing?
(Indeed, I’ve always assumed that sooner or later my DNA would be on some kind of database anyway. If I continually littered the streets with hand-written notes, would I expect nobody to read or store them? Yet every second, thousands of skin cells carrying my innermost genetic secrets scatter to the four winds.)
I have no blood relatives in the USA. Good luck with that!
Yes, they can get a DNA sample from the air, but who’s to say they got the right bit of DNA for you? And, they usally need a larger sample.
One form of stupidity doesn’t rule out another. Its entirely conceivable that they’ve been able to avoid suspicion for a couple weeks but DNA would make that all but impossible
If you had to guess, would you say that more or less than 50% of cops are corrupt? Because it sounds like you’re saying that most of them are. What do you base that on, if that’s what you believe in? Yes, I trust and believe what the cops tell me. Being from LA, I know about the notorious LAPD here and the infamous Rampart division. Still, given how many cops there are and how little corruption cases are witnessed (compared to how many cases there are for other types of crimes), I find this belief of yours irrational. Yes, I trust this net will be cast and I trust that they will only take an extra look at the people who seem most guilty, and I trust that this extra attention will be within the scop of the law
He would do it because there are people like me who don’t mind cooperating with them. Enough of us on this board answered yes to plausibly give the police in the OP’s scenario a big enough population to exclude from further investigations
You can believe what you wish, as will I. However I will say, in an effort to back up my beliefs with reason, that most people who give DNA will likely assume that it will be tested, so the real killer will be less likely to give than others. That alone is reason enough to look at the non-givers through a finer lens. And if the extra questions came to nothing, then maybe testing will be done (since you think they won’t be) and maybe they’ll find something or at least plausibly rule out a large percentage.
And it doesnt matter what you think of the importance of the case or the necessity of the dragnet. That was in the OP’s given scenario and that is what I’m replying to. The OP said that there was a dragnet done after 2 weeks and no leads. That’s all you or I need to know about this case.
And the increased police attention will be done within the scope of the law, making your complaint and worry irrelevent. If that is what the police is using the DNA for, let them, its the only tactic they’ve got after 2 weeks of fruitless investigating. Perhaps if the OP would grace us with follow up scenarios based on the results of the DNA dragnet, we can speculate further. But yes, “efficient is good” can include targeting those who did not give samples, still legal
It pains me to think that you consider police corruption to be just as likely as noncorruption. Seriously, how do you live day to day with the worry that the police are out to get you? I would have left the country by now had I thought that.
And before you ask, yes that tactic does inspire confidence in me 
The “asking” is the same no matter what; no more intrusive than if they wanted an alibi to your shoe size to the name of your pet. They can conjecture whatever they want based on any question you answer, don’t pretend like DNA is the only thing you can refuse to provide before they cast their suspicion on you
Or they could be incredibly stumped and hope to stumble on to something by luck or providence.
Not comfortable doesn’t mean illegal. If you refused to provide a sample and 99% of your neighbors did provide one, then they couldnt legally do to you anything different than if all of your neighbors had refused.
What strawman? I am merely culling my examples from the ones that have already been provided in this thread. I asked you what you are afraid of and so far you’ve given me “uncomfortableness” as your answer. If you really are afraid of something, then tell me what it is. What possible thing are you afraid of the police doing with your DNA that you wouldn’t help a murder investigation? What is it you’re afraid they’ll do?
I thought I had been more clear but let me clarify, yet again.
I said, surprisingly within the line you quoted above your response, that “There is a level of cooperation I’m willing to give the police.” I wouldn’t, for example, let them trash my house looking for a murder weapon because that is too great of a violation. But DNA doesn’t register on my “DO NOT HELP COPS” list.
And no, it is not that I dont believe people could be bothered by given a DNA sample. After all, you and I are arguing about that very thing. It is actually that I dont believe DNA SHOULD be a bother due to my belief that all cops aren’t out to get you. I DONT believe the level of uncomfortableness that you’ve described reaches the level of intrusion that is unbearable. Though you of course have different levels of tolerance than I, such is my belief that when helping a murder investigating in your own neighborhood, DNA and some questions should not register higher than “OMG THERE’S A MUDERER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!! :eek:”
And lastly, it DID cross my mind that the DNA might be a sham, but my first few replies only took the OP at his word in the given scenario. Once you brought up that possibilty to me in greater detail, I decided that even though it might be a sham, it was still worth it to cooperate. That is hardly the same thing compared to your paranoia at police abuse at every turn
To you it is not absurd to think they’re going to torture you for a wrongful confession? I think yeah, maybe the police will do some yelling, maybe they’ll throw some empty threats, but in general what they will do will be legal and I wont be harmed. It is up to you to prove that they will do more than bluster if they even get you into an interrogation room, which they dont have probable cause for. This is really the police yelling at you on your front step, and since you’re not a suspect, you can just slam the door on them. So unless you have proof that at least 50%+ of the police will go through other means of questioning you, then yes, you are making a baseless assumption that this will be more than a casual chat
Your posts haven’t been about self-incrimination in a long time, as you clearly stated that you didnt even want the police to even attempt the dragnet, as your neighbors might incriminate you by giving their DNA.
If the police do a dragnet and you are one of 7 out of 100 people that do not participate, you may be put on a greater suspicion list. That is what you are arguing against. You are not and have not been arguing that I cannot personally give up my DNA, which I will do, and from the looks of things, about 50% of people (at least in this topic) will do as well. You will be on the greater suspicion list regardless of your own actions and that is what you are afraid of. Well too bad, sometimes you’ll just have to deal with it. If what I do incriminates you, then tough: I want to help catch the killer more than I want to prevent you being questioned by the police
Big post. Time to get selective in the responses…
So the toggle is between “infallible perfect saints” and “black-hearted villians”, is it?
I don’t think it’s got anything to do with the cops being corrupt. It has to do with them being cops. Their job is to ferret out the criminals. If they get convinced that I’m a criminal because 93 of my neighbors had a fondness for getting stuck with needles and I’m a belonephobiac, then they’re not going to treat me like their best friend. They’re going to start trying to get me to screw up. That is, they’re going to try to make me uncomfortable, to get me to let slip the dirty little secret they think I may have. Yeah, that sounds like fun!
And yes, there remains a possibility that some of them will start doing things like following me around, watching my house, lurking around looking for the smallest scrap of evidence upon which to build a case. And there’s a possibilty that they might find enough things that look like cards to build a house out of. It might not stand up in court - but do you think I want to get anywhere near going to court?
And let’s note, that all of the above is within the scope of the law.
So yeah. I don’t assume there’s any corruption (though admittedly that wouldn’t help matters). Because it’s got nothing to do with corruption. Never did. It has to do with the fact that once the cops have decided that I’m not their friend, then they’re not my friends anymore. And at no point is that going to be a good thing for me.
Your assumption that nothing that is legal could ever possibly be worrisome or relevent is possibly your greatest error. It certainly is your most obviously erroneous beliefs, in my opinion.
Oh, you noticed? Next remind me why I should choose to care about what is legal rather than what is comfortable.
I mean, other than being worried about whether the cops are all actually corrupt, but that’s not something I really worry about.
Firstly, I don’t really believe that my giving them DNA can help them much with the murder investigation. After all, I’m innocent. If I was the guilty party that would be different, but I’m not.
Secondly, I don’t approve of assigning guilt by process of elimination, because is based on the assumption that people are guilty until proven innocent. I think that’s an inherenly poor police tactic on a rough moral par with racial profiling. So, this is not a tactic I like my police to use, even if on occasion it does help a little sometimes.
Thirdly, I don’t approve of the police trying to decieve the innocent. (I don’t like it when other parts of the government do it, either.) And since I don’t for an isntant believe that the real intent of the dragnet is to collect and test DNA to eliminate suspects, instead believing that they are trying to fool the innocent into giving them data to assign guilt by process of (cheaper) apparent elimination, I don’t like this tactic at all.
So I’m not balancing “giving my dna” with “helping a murder investigation”. I’m balancing “giving my dna” to “not-really helping with a deceptive sham of a miserable excuse for a methodologically flawed murder investigation that targets the innocent too.” Hell, even if it wasn’t uncomfortable, even if it giving dna was euphoric and they also paid me for the priviledge, participating in the dragnet would still be a morally distasteful choice that I would probably eschew. (Though, yes, for good enough pay I could be bought. We have established what I am and are now just negotiating as to price.)
No comment but to note that you just equated “some yelling, maybe they’ll throw some empty threats” with “a casual chat”.
We clearly have much different thresholds as to what defined a comfortable, casual situation. But then, I like to keep my blood inside my skin, too, so maybe I’m just hyperoversensitive.
You know, if we let the police do illegal searches and seizures, that would help even more. Should we make that legal? I mean, since it’s all about catching that murderer, and since you don’t seem to care what you subject other people to in order to accomplish that.
No, that seems to be what you are doing. I have said in the post you are quoting from that there are degrees of cooperation I’m willing to give. And in post #167, I said “I trust most police will act accordingly. Some may be bad, but I’ll take my chances to catch a killer”.
Please dont make me go through this pointless exercise with you again. Only YOU are the one who is distrustful of police 100% of the time. I am the only one in this conversation that allows for the existence of bad cops, yet still think the benefits of cooperation outweighs the negatives. If I have to quote this paragraph that I am writing right now to remind you of that fact I’m going to be peeved :rolleyes:
No good cop, or at least most of them, would be convinced of your guilt just because 93 out of your 100 neighbors submitted DNA and you are part of the 7 who did not. The suspicion on you 7 may be greater, but that is not a reasonable assumption of guilt and I think most cops know that. You are confusing “more suspicion” with “omg guilt!”. You can be suspected yet not thought of as guilty. You’re doing that “all-or-nothing” thing again. Kindly quit it.
Considering that following you around in public and lurking around your house is legal as you admit, your complaint seems to be more against the laws we have, not the cops themselves. Its legal, get over it. Its a hassle like paying taxes and having to go to Jury Duty is a hassle. But I’m not going to sit here and listen to you claim violations of your rights over something thats clearly not a violating but merely an annoyance
It would be unpleasant, but wont cross the line. Thats what you get for not giving up your DNA. Hell, this doesnt even have to be about DNA. Lets say you were pulled over for speeding and you cuss out the cop giving you the ticket. Its legal to call him a shithead, but you get what you deserve if he was only going to let you off with a warning but gives you a ticket instead, and looks around to notice you have slightly too little pressure in your tires, and one of your car’s lights is broken. If you’re a dick to them, even legally, dont expect other people to not legally be a dick to you back
Maybe somehow they construct a false case against you, is that your ultimate worry? If you are facing a judge and possible jail time, would you then give your DNA if it meant that you could be cleared?
Its not that I think what they do legally cannot be worrisome, its that your worries are irrelevent given the opportunity for you to get out of it. Maybe you’ll fight until you get to court and then acquiese to DNA. Maybe you’ll get wrongly convicted and sit in jail but stand by your principles. Or maybe you’re like me and give your DNA right at the beginning and save yourself the trouble. I think you want to live like the Unabomber; alone and undisturbed by anyone. That’s a nice thought, but if a murder happens near you, you’re going to be disturbed, like it or not. It may not be fair, but thats life. And if what other people do cast suspicions on you, that may not be fair, but thats life and there is nothing you can do about it. Lest I remind you, you do not have the right to be not annoyed or bothered.
Because you dont have a right to be comfortable. If the cops mess with you, legally, then oh well, such is life. I know humans, and animals too, dont like to feel powerless, but sometimes life does things that puts you utterly at the mercy of others. Just deal with it
Fair enough. If thats what you believe, then it seems there is little I can say to convince you otherwise. Just so we are clear though, you’ve not convinced me either, so I would not think twice of submitting my DNA even if it causes you the above-mentioned discomfort
You’re the one that implies it wasn’t going to be a casual chat. The sentence you originally posted was quite sarcastic :rolleyes:
Yes, you’re definintely too sensitive
Whoa! There’s the “all-or-nothing” approach again! I’ll give you a pass this time since its part of the same post, but next time I’m going to quote that paragraph I threatened to quote
Get peeved, because you are STILL strawmanning the hell out of me, and you’re going to just on having to keep doing it if you intent to convince me that I’m this charicature that you’ve made up to spare yourself from having to admit I have a point.
No sensible person thinks that all people who go to prison are guilty. No sensible person believes that only guilty people fall prey to the justice system. And no sensible person believes that interacting with the police is always a calm friendly experience. Period.
Your position assumes these beliefs to be the case. Because if it isn’t, then it’s a bad thing to focus police attention on innocent people without actual evidence to justify the suspicion.
Strawmanning me is real fun, isn’t it? the word “guilt” isn’t even in the quoted paragraph.
Strawmanning me is real fun, isn’t it? the phrase “violations of rights” isn’t even in the quoted paragraph.
Well, at least now you’re strawmanning the scenario, instead of strawmanning me. When you cuss out a cop you are begging for trouble. You’re making refusing to comply with the dragnet equivalent to that. In your little world, failing to comply with the cop in any way is equivalent to cussing him out!
I also notice that the issue suddenly switched from discussing the legality of the cop’s actions, to the legaility of the “perp’s” actions - and I say “perp” because suddenly he’s changed from an innocent person to a person caught committing a crime! Funny how that happened, huh? It’s almost as if you’re tying to inject a little justification for the suspiction and possible ill-treatment into the scenario.
Funny, that.
So in other words, it’s not a voluntary dragnet after all. It’s a mandatory one - you can just choose to give your DNA now, or later. (Though in the latter case they’d probably make you pay for it, as punishment for not showing the cops the proper respect! Or you can just go to trial without it…)
We get it. You approve of a police state. You think that we have no rights to keep our DNA. And you’re willing to try and scare us with an argument from emotion to try to get us to acquiesce our rights willingly.
Translation: Despite not being willing to admit that you’re talking about a serious potential for serious harassment, you are willing to admit that even if that happens, you don’t really give a shit, because they asked for it by not immidiately complying. Got it.
Oh, I know I won’t convince you, and I certainly believe you don’t care what happens to innocent people who choose not to immidiately submit everything to the police.
It wouldn’t be a casual chat. DUH.
Obviously I’m too sensitive - I don’t utterly not care what happens to me. And I don’t think that people who fail to surrender everything to the police immidiately deserve what’s coming to them…
I notice you failed to answer the question.
In the unlikely event you decide to, keep in mind that if we made searches and seizures legal, then they’d be legal, and therefore perfectly okay. And in your all-or-nothing world, we can be confident that the cops would never use them indiscriminately on people who are only suspicious, not “omg gilty!”. And when they did use them, well, they’d only be using them on people who didn’t submit to the search or seizure voluntarily, so that’s perfectly okay and should just deal with it.
You may not like it, but this analogizes with the situation a lot better than your 'speeder cussing out a cop" example.
(sarcasm on)
Well, in the US we look at old ladies in wheelchairs as possible hijackers, so why wouldn’t they look at women in this case. Ever hear of a strap-on?
(sarcasm off)
Hmm, not to respond seriously to a sarcastic comment, but presuming they had DNA to compare with for their dragnet, wouldn’t it be possible to tell from that whether the assailant was male or female? (Seriously, I don’t actually know.)
(This is of course assuming that the DNA they have isn’t sperm.)