The problem with only taking the DNA of convicted felons for this hypothetical database is that, what if somebody is raped or murdered by somebody who’s not a convicted felon, or what if a body needs to be identified that doesn’t belong to a convicted felon.
If you have a true nationwide database, and, say, somebody is raped and the police are able to collect the rapist’s DNA from the victim, they can easily match it to someone using the database, and focus their investigations that way. If they just had the hypothetical “convicted felon database”, they had better hope the rapist had been previously convicted of a felony, otherwise, they’re out of luck.
Every felon was at one time a first time felon, and the fact that you’re a law abiding citizen now is no guarantee you always will be.
Fine, but we’ve made a value judgment as a society that nobody should be arrested unless there’s probable cause, and no one should be declared guilty of a crime unless there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they’ve perpetrated said crime. It’s not a perfect standard because it necessarily results in guilty people getting away with their crimes, but that’s an acceptable trade-off to an alternative system which lowers the standards by which we suspect citizens of being responsible for criminal acts.
The default position in society should be one of not suspecting anyone of wrongdoing, and proceeding from there.
Right, but DNA is probable cause. Having the database doesn’t lead to suspecting people, finding the person’s DNA at the crime scene does. The database is just identification.
To draw an analogy, lets say there’s a murder victim, and, before he died, he’s written out (in his own blood, if you want to be melodramatic) “John Smith did it.” It would be a smart move for the police to focus on people named John Smith, go to the DMV database to find out where people named John Smith live, and even to set up a roadblock asking people for their ID to find out if their name is John Smith.
DNA is just, unlike a name, a unique identifier. So if it’s ok for the government to keep databases of people’s names and addresses, what’s wrong with keeping a database of DNA?
I’m not sure there is something wrong with keeping a database of DNA in principle. But a database and a dragnet aren’t neccessarily the same thing.
I’m not keen on a DNA database of every American citizen because I think it’s expensive and likely to be ineffective, and I’m not sure how you persuade people that it is harmless–unless they commit a crime and leave DNA behind.
Only collected DNA from those already convicted of crimes, means that the expense is lower, the potential effectiveness higher, and the primary focus for solving crimes remains on methods other than DNA.
I’m not sure my thoughts on the matter are fully formed, yet, but that’s my inclination at the moment.
You’re not making sense. I don’t understand why people are saying that the police can get a warrant, but this will just save them time. Uh, no they CAN’T get a warrant, that’s the whole point. THEY HAVE NO LEADS, e.g. no individualized suspicion, let alone PROBABLE CAUSE, which is required for a warrant. If they DID have probable cause to get a warrant for someone’s DNA, they’d sure as hell do it, and they’d be MUCH better off in their investigation than trying to convince the whole damn town to voluntarily give up their DNA, which would be extremely time-consuming and expensive.
A dragnet is NOT a substitute for obtaining warrant(s), it’s a desperate tactic when they have absolutely nothing to go on and no option to obtain any warrants.
To all the people who have no problem with giving up your DNA: would you agree to have your DNA indexed if there were no particular crime being investigated, just in case? How about being fingerprinted? How about having a phone tap which the police could activate at will, without a warrant? How about having to file all your computer passwords with the police?
And hell, why not just implant GPS tracking chips in everyone? It would sure make the police’s job easier and aid in solving many crimes, and if you’re not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about, right? Are all the people making these arguments about providing your DNA comfortable with this idea? If not, why not?
Because DNA is a lot more than just an identifier. It’s also a map of your genetic predestination. It contains information about diseases you’re likely to get, possible behavioral propensities, and who knows what else. The more we learn about DNA, the more the government will be able to extract from the samples on file. Are we really sure that we want the government to have access to all that information? Because if we make a DNA database, they’ll have it, and we won’t be able to undo it without great effort (if we’re able at all).
Sorry, my mistake. I should have been more specific and say that **IF **a warrant was possible, then it would also make sense for someone to submit their DNA voluntarily. My reply was more directed at those people who replied that if the police want their DNA, they should get a warrant.
In your case, where a warrant cannot be issued, there are a couple of ways from which I arrived at my answer. One, if the police are truly stumped, then the murderer’s going to have a more likely chance to get off. I dont want that, and knowing that I am not the murderer, I would gladly provide my DNA even if the police cannot issue a warrant for it. I want to save them time going after more pointless tangents and help narrow down the list of suspects. And two, you’re right, a dragnet such as the one we’re talking about is illegal and police can’t just demand your DNA and demand that you prove your innocence before they can establish guilt. But you see, that is exactly why I want to help them out. They cannot use illegal tactics to get your DNA, so in lieu of that, I will provide mine for them legally. I want to help catch this guy, and if the police think my DNA will be helpful in narrowing that huge list down, I’ll give it to them
Given the OP’s scenario, there is a murderer out there. If the police cant find him, that means he’ll be out there to kill again. I would be more afraid of a murderer loose possibly in my neighborhood than the small chance that some crooked cops are going to frame or harass me. It is desperate, that is that the OP established. That is why I am willing to help them out. I’m very disappointed you would not
My DNA is my unique identifier. Even though I am born with it and it is mine, I see no problems with allowing the government to catagorize it for the purpose of crime fighting. Their having my DNA doesn’t affect me because unless someone frames me for something, theres almost no way for it to be used against me. So yeah, take my DNA even if there is no crime, I think everyone should have it done at birth. Fingerprints too, do it at birth or when you apply for a government job.
However, a phone tap crosses the line for me. I see that as different than DNA/prints because the person listening doesnt have to frame me in order for that information to hurt me. Unless you are framed, or someone royally screws up and mixes your blood with OJ’s, having DNA sitting around isn’t going to hurt you. However, if someone taps into my phone and hears embarassing or out of context information, that can hurt me. I wouldnt want my girlfriend or parents to hear some of what I say on the phone or do on the internet, but let her have my DNA (in non-sperm form), that’s not going to harm me. The point is that gossip can be harmful when disseminated, but DNA/prints is generally only harmful only through illegal means
As for computer passwords, I would rather not have the police have them but I cannot honestly give a good reason. I do illegal things online so of course I want to keep doing them. If the government tries to pass a law to that effect, I will fight it, but I will lie about why I want to fight it. I will lie and claim it is about my rights but in actuality it is because I download illegal songs and want to keep doing it
A chip, even if small, can have unintended side effects. However, if a parent wants to implant a chip in their child, I cannot give a good reason why they shouldnt be allowed to
What are you afraid that the government is going to do with your DNA? With the safeguards we already have in place against disseminating confidential information, I would say the whole “not being able to get insurance” thing is simply a scare tactic. If you find out the government did that, you can sue and win easily. Just as priests, doctors, and lawyers have confidentiality with their clients, I am betting the government would have one with you if they ever store your DNA. Therefore, you will never be harmed by accidental information leak. Or you’ll win a lawsuit of millions.
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.
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.
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.
And you know how cops treat criminals. Guilty until proven innocent. (And possibly not even then.)
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.
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?
I thought you just denounced arresting and shooting everybody in sight. Make up your mind.
If it’s not the case that we can just arrest and shoot everyone, then clearly there are other factors at play here than saving time or money. Until we become an official police state, the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty is one of them. The presumption that people should have a right to keep their DNA private is another.
-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…
Extra police attention can very, very easily be harrassment. Denial of that is wishful-thinking-happy-thoughts-deny-reality territory.
And “make them seem more suspicious than others” and “imply they’re guilty” are pretty near synonymous.
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.
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?!
These cops are desperate. Sure it’ll be a casual chat with them. Right. Nothing to worry about at all.
(As I said earlier, I would be unsurprised to be convicted of the crime on the basis of my disrespect for the dragnet.)
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?
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 would fight it because I have stuff on my computer that I wouldn’t want anbody else to look at or read without my permission (among other things, financial information). Despite my not having done anything illegal. (I don’t download songs.)
But then I’m a police-obstructionist crazy person, not wanting to participate in a dragnet. I’m probably a terrorist.
Maybe - criminals are not generally renowned for their penetrating insight.
That is about as far from “precise” as one can get. The police are not fabricating suspects; they are eliminating them.
This is precise - well done. They are narrowing down the list of possible suspects.
To which the response takes two parts - [ul][li]“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal fiction, not an observation.[*]The people in the group to be tested are in the same position vis-a-vis the police whether the dragnet occurs or not. The police suspect everyone in that group. Then they test, and eliminate some percentage. Those that remain in the group are still under suspicion - just like they were before. [/ul][/li]
A court shouldn’t. I see no reason why the police shouldn’t.
I am not talking about making a refusal to cooperate the basis for an arrest or a search. By the logic of the above, people shouldn’t ever cooperate with the police for any reason at any time, no matter what.
I saw the guy stab the little girl to death, and run north between the houses. He was wearing a red bandana, black and white Ree-boks with straps, and had a tattoo of the Virgin Mary on his neck, and “Born to Raise Hell” on his right bicep. Late thirties, white, goatee, both ears pierced. About 5’7", 250 lbs, head shaved.
But if the police ask, I won’t answer any questions. They might think I was in on the crime.
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.
And in fact, even if nearly everyone in the group of (let us say 100) cooperates, that still doesn’t “create a smaller group of people to investigate”. That only lowers the number from 300,000,000 to 299,999,900.
You’re not seriously arguing that the dragnet is done with the expectation that the crook will say, “You’re asking for volunteers to get their DNA, and if the crook gives his DNA he’ll be arrested? Sign me up!”
That seems to be a pretty flimsy pillar to build an argument on.
Fine - they are fabricating investigatable suspects. This must be the goal because, contrary to silly thoughts, they don’t actually expect to catch the crook this way. The goal is to create justification for closer investigation, where there wasn’t any before.
Because, after all, if there was sufficient justified cause to do the in-depth investigations and interrogations and searches and waterboarding or whatever, they would have already done it. Since they have not, they must be attempting to create something they didn’t have before. And what that is, is investigatable suspects.
We’ll note again that these suspects have done nothing to actually justify closer attention. NOTHING.
Actually, this was imprecise - as has been noted, they’re narrowing it from “everyone in the world” to “Everyone in the world minus a handful of people”. What is being created here is a suspicion and *illusion *of guilt, that is unjustified by any actual data and is based only on a completely evidence-free assumption that the criminal is actually a resident of the neighborhood.
[quote=“Shodan, post:135, topic:505362”]
To which the response takes two parts - [ul][li]“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal fiction, not an observation.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
It’s a legal fiction in my country, and I like it that way. I’m sure there are other countries that can offer you the alternate model, if you prefer it.
[quote=“Shodan, post:135, topic:505362”]
[ul][li]The people in the group to be tested are in the same position vis-a-vis the police whether the dragnet occurs or not. The police suspect everyone in that group. Then they test, and eliminate some percentage. Those that remain in the group are still under suspicion - just like they were before. [/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
What a complete load of crap. If this were true, the police wouldn’t have bothered to run the dragnet. Necessarily the dragnet is intented to magic up some cause for increased-intensity investigation on some of these suspects, despite there being no actual evidence connecting them to the crime. It is certainly not the case that those who refuse to participate in the dragnet are in the same position vis-a-vis the police.
Regardless of how personally convienient it is to pretend otherwise while you throw the innocents to the wolves.
Right - but there are rules in place dictating police conduct. You know - the ones that prevented them from rounding all these people up and doing mandatory DNA tests on them.
I like those rules.
So… you’re going to compare refraining from giving police actual information that will actually help them find and catch the actual criminal, to giving them private imformation about yourself that cannot possibly directly help them catch the actual criminal, and which will only subject a number of your innocent neighbors (and maybe the criminal) to unfavorable police attention?