Note: Lawyers inputs not wanted. In Massachusetts (Trro, on Cape Cod), a woman was mudered in 2002. So far, the police haven’t identified any suspects-so they are now asking male residents of the town to make voluntary contributuions of their DNA samples. This sounds OK at first (a savage murderer was caught in England, a few years ago, when the townspeople were asked to submit DNA samples), but on second thought, why should anyone give up their right against self-incrimination? Obviously, the police are frustrated…but clearly, they MUST have some DNA evidence…and asking people to give up their DNA sounds dangerous to me…how can you be sure that your DNA was not transported to the murder scene by accident? Or, could you DNA implicate you in other crimes?
What say you all?
No. I’ve never been arrested and it wouldn’t cause me a problem, I’d just like to think the fourth amendment hasn’t flown away to fairyland forever.
Yes I would if convinced the material would only be used in this specific case and destroyed when no longer of use.
I would tell the cops to kindly go screw themselves.
Marley23, the 4th amendment hasn’t gone anywhere here, because it’s voluntary. It’s like the police coming to your house and asking to come in, you can say no. Saying no will not implicate you in any way (well, it shouldn’t, but police might think ‘oh, he refused, so he as something to hide.’) If, however, they somehow got a court order for every DNA sample in town, then yes, that would be a violation.
Me? I’d probably do it, but I might make a request like Rune. Who knows what places I went to that I left DNA that later became a crime scene.
I realize that, but I disagree. If they don’t have probable cause, I don’t think they have the right to ask me for a DNA sample in the first place.
What’s the story here? The guy who committed the murder actually was stupid enough to voluntarily submit DNA?
Oh, another drive-by thread?
I would probably volunteer as a matter of civic duty, but I don’t see any compelling reason why the other 293,999,999 people in this country would do so.
I also wouldn’t have a huge problem with a DNA sample taken at birth and stored with a new kind of digital birth certificate, as I suspect many Dopers would vehemently oppose.
There are many occassion when a set of fingerpints are submitted in order to take jobs in certain areas of employment.
In the event of an arrest they are taken as a means of positive identification.
DNA is much the same except in the manner of use. Once a sample is identified as yours it is another ID.
The real problem with DNA is the possibility of it being used to connect you to a crime scene erroneously. :rolleyes:
ahem So, how long can they detect DNA from the saliva off of a burned out joint discarded in an alley?
:shifts eyes around:
… just asking.
Revtm: the guy in England was caught because he paid another man to take the DNA tesr for him. The police checked the guy out, and found out about the fraud. When the guilty wan was arrested, his DNA was found to match that found on the murder victim’s body.
I wouldn’t give a DNA sample, nothing good can come of it. I don’t need to prove my innocense to anyone. All giving a DNA sample will do is allow for a possible false match of me to the murder and then I am in a world of shit.
Thanks ralph124c.
Nothing good for whom? You seem to think the world orbits around yourself.
It would be good for the town if it rid itself of a murder and it would be good for possible future victims.
It would be good for the parents and loved ones, helping them get on with their life knowing justice has been served and get some kind of closure.
It would be good for the police which can solve a case, and divert energy on other problems in the town – again good for the town people.
It would be good for the dead girl, laying her soul to rest – if you believe in that sort of thing.
You don’t need to do anything, but perhaps you’d want to anyway.
How does an innocent person submitting his DNA accomplish any of those things?
A person innocent today may not be innocent tomorrow. The paths of life are many, and they are unpredictable.
As a side note, this would also greatly increase the efficiency and security for any identification purposes (parental checks, identity checks, etc)
By ruling out a possible suspect it lets the police focus their attention on what can help solve the case. Just a little help. Or perhaps the police just want those samples because they’re tired of their butterfly collection.
Well, let’s say that we have a small town of about 100 people. 99 innocent people come in and submit their DNA. All of them show a false match. Guess on whom the supsicion now lies?
Granted this is an unlikely scenario, but it is possible.
What would be interesting is if this is sufficient probable cause to get a warrent for the DNA of that one person that didn’t submit. That would raise a whole hell of a caboose on 4th amendment issues I suspect.
Yes, but that would require the police to hold on to the samples, also after they’re in no use in the specific case. A thing I cannot support. But which incidentally has just been voted through in Denmark.
I don’t see it as any worse than retaining thumb/finger prints and photos.