Here in California, you don’t even need to be convicted in order to be required to give a DNA sample:
I’m curious. Could you explain how giving a DNA sample will automatically send you to jail?
It wouldn’t automatically send me to jail but either Police incompetence, corruption, framing or testing error may. Why would I expose myself to that risk for no tangible benefit to anyone?
Yeah, as several people have indicated, I wouldn’t do it just because I was in the same geographical vicinity that a murder took place, but if I were one of twelve people in a house the night Colonel Mustard got whacked on the head with a candlestick (and put up a valiant fight before dying, thus managing to get some of the murderer’s blood and skin cells under his fingernails), then I’d likely submit a sample. Fingerprints too.
Actually, I would not be happy about submitting to a lie detector test. Or rather, I’d submit to a lie detector test, if someone would just hurry up and invent a lie detector. I don’t trust polygraphs, though.
Hell, no, I wouldn’t. Not without a warrant.
This is one of the erosions of privacy, and implicity liberty, that Benjamin Franklin warned us about :
Well excuuuuuse me. 
That should read “Lawyers’ inputs not wanted.”
- a lawyer
No way in hell would I give a sample. It’s already too slippery of a slope, and it just gets more slippery the more the ‘little things’ get worn away…
If I was guilty of the crime? Hell no. That’d be stupid. I’m not stupid.
If I was innocent of the crime? Hell no. I already know I’m innocent, and I have nothing to prove until someone actually accuses me of the crime. Giving them access to my DNA would therefore be unnecessary, and can, in the worst case, implicate me in the crime through methods other Dopers have posited.
However…
I do think that it’s just a matter of time until every citizen’s DNA is on file anyway, by law. The benefits outweigh the detriments, in my opinion. Until such time as the necessary bills are passed, however, I’ll not be volunteering.
What would be the reaction of the folks here if they were asked to provide a sample for a reason not related to law enforcement?
I had to supply a blood sample for the National Marrow Donor Registry (voluntary) and the DNA registry for military personnel (not voluntary).
I had a background check and a drug test for my job. I think it is no different in principle to DNA sampling.
But that was a private company, not the government.
I would supply the sample. My interest in the matter is that I want the police to catch the killer, and I know it isn’t me, and I would rather not have the police waste their time.
I would resist the notion that my refusal to provide a sample could establish an inference as to my guilt in a court of law, but that is a different matter.
It would be sort of having a cop show up on your doorstep some morning who says, “There was a shooting last night next door. Did you happen to hear anything?” and responding “I refuse to answer on the advice of counsel” instead of “Sorry, I was out of town until half an hour ago.” I understand the principle, but it is less trouble to rule yourself out.
Refusing to cooperate with police is not evidence of guilt, but that doesn’t mean it is a smart or worthwhile thing all the time. And I rather doubt that it would be a short step from voluntarily giving up a blood sample to jack-booted thugs breaking down my door.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
It would be a stupid thing to do. The necessary scientific testing on things like false negatives coupled with our general mathematical illiteracy makes it a bad idea regardless of issues like privacy. For reference, please see Calculated Risks.
No. Fuckin’. Way.
End of story.
It really depends on the level of anonymity and/or discretion, the intended use of the DNA, and the trustworthyness of those requesting a sample.
I certainly don’t trust cops. Sure, most are fine folks, but enough appear to be sufficiently corrupt that anyone really should take a defensive stance when being asked for evidence, and know their rights. It’s just good CYA procedure. If law enforcement wants my DNA, they can come up with a good reason for procuring it and get a warrant. Otherwise, no effing way. These guys in Truro are idiots. Of course there must be a few folks like me who are going to tell them to stick it in their collective ears; perhaps there could be scores or hundreds of us within the radius they’re sweeping. So, they’ve gone so far as to state they’re looking for folks who have “got something to hide”. Great. Now they’ll transition from having no suspects to having tens or hundreds of suspects. I doubt a little town on the Cape has the kind of manpower to follow up on all those leads.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot:
Oh yeah? That’s not what your mom said!!
Ooo! Oo yeah! Burn! I rule!
Of course I would, if for no reason other than to make sure that no one had any suspicion of me.
I’m all about a library of DNA, too.
No way! If there’s someone I need to whack in the future I can’t have that stuff on file.
Er…I meant false positives—those are the ones who get us innocent folk in trouble.
Good one, dude.
The latest on ths is, the Truro polic are walking around with a picture of the dead woman’s5-year old daughter, and asking for voluntary submissions.Again, I don’t get it: nobody with any connection to the murder victimis going to give a sample, and DNA testing hundreds of samples isn’t cheap.
Unless of course the police hope to flush out a suspect.
Anyway, seems like an inefficient way to solve a crime.
In addition to the civil liberties issues, there’s a basic practical problem – false positives are likely to overwhelm true positives, because the number of innocent people scanned is so much larger than the number of guilty ones.