Expanding Criminal DNA Database = Infringement on Privacy?

[Hain]

View: Rape victim pushes for expanded DNA database
Source: CNN
This post created with FASS

Rape victim pushes for expanded DNA database
Mon, 12 May 2008 11:42:07 EDT
by Kelli Arena and Kevin Bohn

Abstract: "Maryland is joining a dozen other states in expanding its database, and walking straight into controversy. To supporters, building DNA databases with samples from the unconvicted is no different from collecting fingerprints. Critics say it's a complete violation of civil rights."   click to show 

Laura Neuman was raped when she was 18 years old. It took nearly 20 years to identify her attacker, even though he'd been arrested six times before her attack and at least six times afterward.
art.dna.jpg

Rape victim Laura Neuman pushed authorities to reopen her case and expand the DNA database.

Alphonso Hill pleaded guilty in September 2002 to raping Neuman and was sent to prison for 15 years. A DNA sample, taken in prison, led to charges in six other rape cases.

Police say he's also a suspect in at least 20 rapes in the Baltimore, Maryland, area. Hill denies raping any women besides Neuman, and his lawyer wouldn't comment.

If Hill is eventually proven guilty, Neuman believes that he could have been stopped.

"He could have been caught sooner if DNA had been taken and he had been matched to the cases that were unsolved," she said.

"For me, it would have made a profound difference in having the case solved sooner and for many of these women, their cases would have been solved sooner."

So she went public with her story, lobbying fiercely in her home state, Maryland, for a law that would require police to take DNA samples from everyone arrested for a violent crime. She testified before the state Legislature.

On Tuesday, Maryland starts expanding its DNA database, collecting samples from people arrested for murder, rape, and assault instead of just collecting DNA from convicted criminals.

Maryland is joining a dozen other states in expanding its database, and walking straight into controversy. To supporters, building DNA databases with samples from the unconvicted is no different from collecting fingerprints. Critics say it's a complete violation of civil rights.

"This is information that leads to all sorts of basic data about who we are, our entire physical makeup," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That is really different than a few fingerprints."

DNA and the states
These states require DNA from people arrested for some felonies:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virgina.
Next year, California and North Dakota will require DNA from all felony suspects.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Fredrickson added that there are already too many examples of racial profiling and innocent people being rounded up in police dragnets. "Our privacy is a critical factor and we can't assume that everybody is guilty until they are proven themselves innocent," she said.

Like it or not, it's a trend that is gaining popularity.

At least 21 other states are considering proposals similar to Maryland's.

Changes are coming at the federal level as well. The government soon will begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested or detained by the feds, including illegal immigrants.

"I think there is a valid public policy for doing that because there are many people who have committed crimes but who have never been convicted but have been arrested and without their DNA in the system we are not solving those crimes," said Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor.

Most states with the new DNA arrestee laws require the police to automatically destroy the samples if suspects are found not guilty or the charges are dropped. But federal authorities require a formal request before they'll destroy a specific DNA sample.

Critics worry the data could be misused, a charge O'Connor disputes. "Congress has passed a provision that says anybody who abuses this information, or uses it for non-law enforcement purposes such as to look at someone's family history of diabetes or whatever the disease might be ... will be prosecuted," he said.

Justice Department officials estimate when the expansion is fully implemented -- as soon as December -- information from about 1.2 million people a year could be added to the national DNA database. It's another cause of consternation for critics--who say backlogs remain a major problem.

The FBI estimates that about a quarter of a million DNA samples have yet to be processed in its lab and says it did not receive any new funds to deal with the backlog, which is sure to grow even larger.

Many states are facing similar issues.
advertisement

Critics worry that as workloads increase, catastrophic errors could be made. "We have seen examples of crime labs that have not been able to get to the DNA testing that has ultimately led to finding a criminal," the ACLU's Fredrickson said. "That is what we need to do, focus our resources on where they are actually going to make a difference." But proponents like Neuman say that criticism is shortsighted.

"Is it worth the risk to make sure that we get these cases solved and keep people behind bars who should be behind bars?" she said. "Those who are innocent have nothing to fear"

This news article struck me as important. Crime, rape, and murder is not to be taken lightly. It is difficult for me to make a decision about whether or not this is an infringement on personal privacy. My gut instinct tells me, "No, it is not." However the article brings up a very good point of this information being used for non law enforcement purposes. I am sure this will be prosecuted but how well will such an infraction be enforced? I then remind myself that if a company was going to find out about some personal information of a person, they have many other means to find such things out: insurance/medical records, blood/hair donations, (for men) semen samples, previous confidential employment records.

At the moment I think this is a good idea to help investigate crime. If one has been arrested, then the DNA should be collected. If one is innocent, this DNA could not be used against one in the purposes of serving justice. I feel other means of obtaining this information outside of law enforcement exist already, therefore: how much damage will this actually do?

[Willravel]

Committing a crime usually means that you're risking losing some of your rights (assuming you're caught). What I would prefer is that having your DNA included in this list was a part of sentencing, as it is a removal of the right to privacy. I would also say that if one is exonerated, they remove your DNA from the list.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by willravel

(1) What I would prefer is that having your DNA included in this list was a part of sentencing, as it is a removal of the right to privacy. (2) I would also say that if one is exonerated, they remove your DNA from the list.

1. If one is sentenced, does that not include one was convicted? I thought, as per the article, the DNA of convicted criminals is collected and on file.
2. Without question.

[Jinn]

You're sentenced after being convicted. I too support taking DNA from convicted felons. It's not like fingerprints to me.

Only those convicted of felonies should have the DNA taken. We take their right to vote and their right to own a firearm away, and I don't take issue with those. Taking DNA is just a "modern day" adaption of the concept that once you've committed a felony - a grievous crime, usually involving violence - you're revoked your right to certain things. This just adds the "right to keep your DNA private" privilege to the list of things revoked.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

You're sentenced after being convicted. I too support taking DNA from convicted felons. It's not like fingerprints to me.

Only those convicted of felonies should have the DNA taken. We take their right to vote and their right to own a firearm away, and I don't take issue with those. Taking DNA is just a "modern day" adaption of the concept that once you've committed a felony - a grievous crime, usually involving violence - you're revoked your right to certain things. This just adds the "right to keep your DNA private" privilege to the list of things revoked.

while I'm 110% sure that the nanny staters/statists are going to get this implemented, all in the name of better law enforcement and safety, we must be very careful and demanding that the DNA sample can only be taken for very specific types of crimes, not just 'all felonies'.

not all felonies are grievous crimes, for example in Illinois a second conviction of driving on a revoked or suspended license is a felony. This is not a violent crime in any way shape or form and an order to obtain a DNA for file permanently sentence serves zero purpose since some felonies can be totally non-violent and non-offensive to others.

[Willravel]

Good point, dk. How about DNA for violent crimes, rape, homicide, and molestation? Outside of that, I can't imagine needing it.

[Ustwo]

If you are not convicted, then no, you shouldn't be in a data base.

DNA tells too much about you and will tell more and more as time goes on.

[Jinn]

not all felonies are grievous crimes, for example in Illinois a second conviction of driving on a revoked or suspended license is a felony. This is not a violent crime in any way shape or form and an order to obtain a DNA for file permanently sentence serves zero purpose since some felonies can be totally non-violent and non-offensive to others.

I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.

Research has shown over and over and over again that those willing to be "repeat offenders" of any crime, regardless of severity, are exponentially more likely to be incarcerated for more serious crimes later in life. The rule of thumb that "80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the population" holds very true in the realm of criminology. There's no direct (internet) link for a PHD dissertation in criminology I just attended, but off hand I remember that in a survey of 1000ish convicted for sexual assault, they'd collectively committed 3000 other crimes, ranging from simple battery to larceny.

Anyone who has committed the same crime (or range of crimes) two or more times is demonstrating a pattern of unlawful behavior which (in my eyes) means they will commit other crimes in the future. In this case, collecting their DNA makes absolute investigative sense.

[highthief]

Not sure what the laws in the US are - in Canada "serious" offences are called "indictable" for which a minimum 2 year sentence applies. IMO, people convicted of such crimes should be part of a DNA data-base.

[monokrome]

More people every day find law enforcement is best considered from a viewpoint suggesting that "everyone is a criminal".

Things like this should be expected by now. Realistically, this looks to me as the same basic concept as letting a cop search you without suspicion. It definately shows that people don't trust anyone any more, but not really against any civil rights.

I'd have to suggest that this information is public domain - just like our phone numbers, addresses, names, criminal records, etc.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.

I really do agree with this idea here. If you are a convicted felon, your DNA gets on file.

Originally Posted by monokrome

I'd have to suggest that this information is public domain - just like our phone numbers, addresses, names, criminal records, etc.

I absolutely do not agree with this, if I read it correctly. Having one's DNA accessible by anyone of the public? This is exactly what we want to prevent. Anyone can then test your DNA for various diseases and suddenly you don't have health insurance anymore, and you don't know why.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.

really? because i've done it many times and to this date have never kidnapped, raped, killed, or assaulted anyone. but since you think the likelihood of me doing so is relatively high, fuck my rights, do I have that right?

[Jinn]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

really? because i've done it many times and to this date have never kidnapped, raped, killed, or assaulted anyone. but since you think the likelihood of me doing so is relatively high, fuck my rights, do I have that right?

Taking this personally reveals a misunderstanding of statistics; while you might not have, you must understand that your 'peers' (repeat offenders of lesser crimes) are exponentially more likely to commit more serious crimes. The fact that you haven't isn't a counterpoint.

And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one. Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one. Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.

Let's not forget that the DNA is legally required to be private- used only in the application of justice.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one.

you're also saying 'fuck MY rights'. I find that totally reprehensible.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.

so the 1st is more important than the 4th?

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you're also saying 'fuck MY rights'. I find that totally reprehensible.

You were also saying, "Fuck you laws."

so the 1st is more important than the 4th?

I do believe that the swift and proper (i.e. accurate) administering of justice is more important than your feelings being hurt, no offense. If you don't break the law, what will there be to worry about?

[dksuddeth]

are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.

The laws are in place to keep one safe from others, and even one's self. Just because one does not agree with a law, does not make that law any less important. If you feel strongly about this law, vote for law-makers that think as you do, or work to change the law yourself.

[Jinn]

In cases where public safety and security are concerned, the Amendments can and have been suspended. For example, "Terry stops", where an officer is allowed to pat a suspect down for weapons or dangerous items, skirts the Fourth Amendment because they operate in good faith to ensure the safety of the public.

Likewise, the First Amendment right to speech and assembly can be temporarily suspended in order to prevent riots and violent demonstrations, when it can be shown that it 'serves the greater good' to temporarily suspend someone's rights.

In the case of felons, they've committed crimes so offensive or repetitive that we, as a country, believe they should have certain rights removed to prevent them from continuing to do harm. Someone who is arrested for twice driving under revocation represents a clear danger to society, I'm sorry. I can't really tell if you're saying that you've been arrested for such, but it demonstrates a CLEAR disrespect for the laws which bind the rest of society. In the only good survey I could find with a quick Google search, the average felon has TEN previous convictions before their felony conviction. That means that they've got a pattern of law-disregarding behavior. Whether this is driving under suspension or DUI, it's an indicator about that person and what they believe.

It serves the public to retain the DNA of convicted felons, as they, quite astonishingly, have a RECORD of past convictions and are likely to commit additional crimes if ever released from prison.

You might not like being lumped into a group who statistically patterns their behavior into a life of crime, but if you've been convicted of a felony it was your choice to join that group, not mine.

Suspending the rights of one to ensure the quality of life of the majority is an important part of governance. It should be exercised with care, and we should only revoke rights for the common good when someone has demonstrated the ability to commit felonious crimes or repeatedly disregard laws for the safety of the populace, like driver's licensing requirements.

Originally Posted by Our Great Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.

If you don't like a law, change it. Don't just break it like a common criminal.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Augi

The laws are in place to keep one safe from others, and even one's self. Just because one does not agree with a law, does not make that law any less important. If you feel strongly about this law, vote for law-makers that think as you do, or work to change the law yourself.

totally wrong concept, in both theory and practice. A law does not keep anyone safe. One need only read the news on a daily basis to know this, i.e. murder is against the law yet people are killed every day. The simple belief that a law makes one safe should make that person totally ineligible to be released from the womb. A law is definitely not going to keep a person safe from their own self. seat belt laws do not force everyone to 'buckle up'.

If a law was made making interracial marriage illegal again, should we have to vote in new lawmakers to change it? or would the law be illegal on its front?

[Jinn]

EDIT: Saw your latest post:

are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.

Absolutely not. Violating laws does not make one a reprehensible criminal. I've broken many in my life. However, there is a very large gap between misdemeanor convictions and felony convictions. Petty theft is different than forcible rape, and I hope you realize that.

There are very few examples of "minor" crimes becoming felonies, and in the case of multiple convictions of "driving under suspension", a person *IS* a dangerous criminal. Cars are deadly weapons just like any other, and they must've had their license revoked in the first place for a very good reason.

As for the repeated thread-jacks, we're talking about DNA collection here, not interracial marriage laws or the effectiveness of laws in general.

You can't "accidentally" become a felon.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

totally wrong concept, in both theory and practice.

We have laws in order for them to be enforced by enforcers. Does this make everyone safe instantaneously, no. Does it provide consequences once one is caught, yes.

If a law was made making interracial marriage illegal again, should we have to vote in new lawmakers to change it? or would the law be illegal on its front?

I knew you were going to come up with some outrageous case where a law is not right. I don't consider it because that is not the issue. I'd rather discuss how laws against common sense or morality may come be created elsewhere.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

In cases where public safety and security are concerned, the Amendments can and have been suspended. For example, "Terry stops", where an officer is allowed to pat a suspect down for weapons or dangerous items, skirts the Fourth Amendment because they operate in good faith to ensure the safety of the public.

There are very specific criteria to be met in order for a terry stop to be performed. I've read many cases where cops assume they can do this everytime, and have been proven wrong in court.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Likewise, the First Amendment right to speech and assembly can be temporarily suspended in order to prevent riots and violent demonstrations, when it can be shown that it 'serves the greater good' to temporarily suspend someone's rights.

this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?

Originally Posted by JinnKai

In the case of felons, they've committed crimes so offensive or repetitive that we, as a country, believe they should have certain rights removed to prevent them from continuing to do harm. Someone who is arrested for twice driving under revocation represents a clear danger to society, I'm sorry.

You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I can't really tell if you're saying that you've been arrested for such, but it demonstrates a CLEAR disrespect for the laws which bind the rest of society.

If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

only good survey I could find with a quick Google search, the average felon has TEN previous convictions before their felony conviction. That means that they've got a pattern of law-disregarding behavior. Whether this is driving under suspension or DUI, it's an indicator about that person and what they believe.

so how many laws have you broken today?

Originally Posted by JinnKai

It serves the public to retain the DNA of convicted felons, as they, quite astonishingly, have a RECORD of past convictions and are likely to commit additional crimes if ever released from prison.

do we as americans now serve the state(people)?

Originally Posted by JinnKai

You might not like being lumped into a group who statistically patterns their behavior into a life of crime, but if you've been convicted of a felony it was your choice to join that group, not mine.

as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Suspending the rights of one to ensure the quality of life of the majority is an important part of governance.

It's also one of the reasons that the founders rebelled against the english.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

ld be exercised with care, and we should only revoke rights for the common good when someone has demonstrated the ability to commit felonious crimes or repeatedly disregard laws for the safety of the populace, like driver's licensing requirements.

I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?

Originally Posted by willravel

If you don't like a law, change it. Don't just break it like a common criminal.

this from the person who advocates civil disobedience from time to time?

[Hain]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

You can't "accidentally" become a felon.

I agree. Plenty of "accidents" that have landed me in situations I did not want to be in.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

EDIT: Saw your latest post:



Absolutely not. Violating laws does not make one a reprehensible criminal. I've broken many in my life. However, there is a very large gap between misdemeanor convictions and felony convictions. Petty theft is different than forcible rape, and I hope you realize that.

There are very few examples of "minor" crimes becoming felonies, and in the case of multiple convictions of "driving under suspension", a person *IS* a dangerous criminal. Cars are deadly weapons just like any other, and they must've had their license revoked in the first place for a very good reason.

As for the repeated thread-jacks, we're talking about DNA collection here, not interracial marriage laws or the effectiveness of laws in general.

You can't "accidentally" become a felon.

you most certainly CAN become an accidental felon and to deny such is sticking your head in the sand.

bringing up different issues could be a threadjack, however, as it relates to individual rights being suspended or revoked does not make it so.

Originally Posted by Augi

I knew you were going to come up with some outrageous case where a law is not right. I don't consider it because that is not the issue. I'd rather discuss how laws against common sense or morality may come be created elsewhere.

then by all means lets make stupidity illegal. that should stop a lot of crime.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

There are very specific criteria to be met in order for a terry stop to be performed. I've read many cases where cops assume they can do this everytime, and have been proven wrong in court.

But there were also instances where it was valid to perform a terry stop. Your point? It isn't like you are required to give your DNA for nothing. You have been found to have done something very wrong in the eyes of the law.

this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?

I see this as the adult version of name calling. Why do you instantly propose that we are in favor of the extreme far case?

You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?

If you keep up driving dangerously, or whatever it was you did, then yes.

If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.

Freedoms come with a price. If with weren't for the consequences, what keeps you safe from anyone that has any free idea in their head?

as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.

Again, a case not part of this argument.

I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?

The license is for us to ensure you are safe to drive. I don't care that you feel you are safe.


I really dislike doing the "pick apart an entire post." Why do you like it?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

then by all means lets make stupidity illegal. that should stop a lot of crime.

This isn't the topic of discussion.

[Jinn]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?

Do you counter every point by putting words in someone's mouth? No, that does not work for me.

You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?

Are you a convicted felon? If so, yes. I have no problem lumping ALL convicted felons into a "dangerous to civil society" group. If they have a problem with that, then they shouldn't be committing felonies. It's not a blind prejudice, because they've CHOSEN to commit the crime or crimes which result in felony convictions. The also, statistically speaking, shown a blanket disregard for society's rules.

If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.

I'm sorry to destroy your Anarchist dream, but freedom only happens when we actively work to prevent those who would harm us from continuing to do so. There will always be people who victimize others, regardless of the scarcity or abundance of laws. The laws, however, exist to remove individuals from society when they begin to harm society's ability to live a free, SAFE life.

so how many laws have you broken today?

At least three. I exceeded the posted speed limit, I failed to come to a complete stop, and I executed a left hand turn without having my turn signal blinking for 400 feet.

do we as americans now serve the state(people)?

No. But most of us don't have a chip on our shoulder about the legislative system and how it's keeping you down.

as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.

Again, slippery slope / putting words in my mouth. Is there any indication that this is happening? What crime that was not previously a felony is now a felony?

I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?

I don't even think I need to respond to this one. Most CIVIL individuals, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or Independent, man or woman, agree that licensing requirements for the operation of a motor vehicle are A VERY GOOD THING, considering the number of fatalities caused by MV accidents far exceeds those caused by any other violent crime. Your failure to understand this demonstrates you inability to understand the concept of a "greater good", and, in my opinion, demonstrates everything that exemplifies immaturity.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Augi

But there were also instances where it was valid to perform a terry stop. Your point? It isn't like you are required to give your DNA for nothing. You have been found to have done something very wrong in the eyes of the law.

so we actually can determine that there can be crimes that don't warrant DNA?

Originally Posted by Augi

I see this as the adult version of name calling. Why do you instantly propose that we are in favor of the extreme far case?

because nannystaters generally do?

Originally Posted by Augi

Freedoms come with a price. If with weren't for the consequences, what keeps you safe from anyone that has any free idea in their head?

it's been my experience that those intent on harming someone don't really care about the consequences anymore, DNA or not.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

The license is for us to ensure you are safe to drive. I don't care that you feel you are safe.

a discussion we've had before about how having a license doesn't make one safe. continue to ignore it, i see it doesn't work for you.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I don't even think I need to respond to this one. Most CIVIL individuals, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or Independent, man or woman, agree that licensing requirements for the operation of a motor vehicle are A VERY GOOD THING, considering the number of fatalities caused by MV accidents far exceeds those caused by any other violent crime. Your failure to understand this demonstrates you inability to understand the concept of a "greater good", and, in my opinion, demonstrates everything that exemplifies immaturity.

and, in my opinion, your FAILURE to understand that licensing requirements in no way, shape, or form guarantee a 'safe' drive demonstrates your inability to understand reality, or that a laminated government certificate does not make one a 'safe' driver. It's exemplary of everything that shows ones ignorance the real world and people.

[Jinn]

Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.

I see no problem requiring that individuals committed of these crimes should be required to provide their DNA on a successful conviction. These aren't 'accidental' things. Perhaps you're able to derive exceptional felonies like "habitual offender" felonies, but I believe that they, through their repeated disregard for the safety of others, are any different than those above.

and, in my opinion, your FAILURE to understand that licensing requirements in no way, shape, or form guarantee a 'safe' drive demonstrates your inability to understand reality, or that a laminated government certificate does not make one a 'safe' driver. It's exemplary of everything that shows ones ignorance the real world and people.

No, but it's one good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's not a perfect solution, but it does serve a valid purpose. If you were a 'safe' driver, maybe you wouldn't have had your license suspended in the first place?

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so we actually can determine that there can be crimes that don't warrant DNA?

I freely admit my ignorance in the terminology of the law, but I thought there were crimes not classified as felonies.

because nannystaters generally do?

You have a point. I would consider the extremes if it served my purpose. Damn. However, I don't think these extremes apply as it is about making justice work faster.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it's been my experience that those intent on harming someone don't really care about the consequences anymore, DNA or not.

So because you see no benefit towards the prevention of crime, there is no point in this policy. Like you pointed out, laws don't stop crime. Enforcers stop crime, or enforcers punish those that that have committed crimes. The object of the this act is to expedite the administration of justice.


Originally Posted by JinnKai
My point, but I will look into the threads that talk about driver's licenses.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

No, but it's one good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's not a perfect solution, but it does serve a valid purpose. If you were a 'safe' driver, maybe you wouldn't have had your license suspended in the first place?

Agreed. Had my license revoked... was my own damned fault.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this from the person who advocates civil disobedience from time to time?

Civil disobedience is an act of desperation, and a last resort. If you've exhausted every other avenue available, then you disobey, but never violently. You have, however, many times proudly proclaimed that it's time for an armed revolution. You've said that you're willing to shoot and kill people if they took away your rights.

Civil disobedience is only for the non-violent. You're a strong gun proponent. These two ideologies are not compatible.

[Hain]

@dksuddeth:
You aren't arguing why this extended DNA database is infringing on rights, but are repeatedly describing laws that you feel infringe on rights. This is how I read your posts.

original post   click to show 

@dksuddeth:
You aren't arguing why this extended DNA database is infringing on rights, but are repeatedly describing new laws that would infringe on current rights. This is how I read your posts.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Augi

................


@dksuddeth:
You aren't arguing why this extended DNA database is infringing on rights, but are repeatedly describing new laws that would infringe on current rights. This is how I read your posts.

Initially, I did. There ARE some crimes that do not need to have this personal violation, simply because we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws and standards. I go with the new law approach because very few people bother to look at the big picture when they come up with an idea of improving society or justice. When a new law is written, it should not be written with the focus on how it will affect those it's written for, but how it COULD affect those it was never intended to. That is why I am so intense about them.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Initially, I did. There ARE some crimes that do not need to have this personal violation, simply because we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws and standards. I go with the new law approach because very few people bother to look at the big picture when they come up with an idea of improving society or justice. When a new law is written, it should not be written with the focus on how it will affect those it's written for, but how it COULD affect those it was never intended to. That is why I am so intense about them.

OK I can see this being a problem. I thought crimes considered to be felons were equal in all states. Is this wrong?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Augi

OK I can see this being a problem. I thought crimes considered to be felons were equal in all states. Is this wrong?

very much so. as i said before, in Illinois, second offense of driving while revoked is a felony, yet here in texas i'm only getting a class C misdemeanor ticket, no matter how many times i'm stopped.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

very much so. as i said before, in Illinois, second offense of driving while revoked is a felony, yet here in texas i'm only getting a class C misdemeanor ticket, no matter how many times i'm stopped.

To be fair, you only said, "In Illinois..." and did not compare it to Texas. If you compared them from the get-go, a lot of this from me would have been different. Granted, I would prefer Texas to have stricter driving laws, no offense.

I have always felt that when laws/rules are applied they should be applied universally- regardless of position, location, race, creed, color, etc. If felony laws change from state to state, then the overall DNA processing of "felons" is highly questionable. In my opinion we would need federal regulations that determine the criteria for when the DNA of convicted persons are to be taken for processing.



The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Augi

The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).

The question is where to draw the line. If you're innocent, why can't the police search your house whenever they want? Why can't they break into your car? Why can't the listen to your phone calls and listen to your emails?

The answer is that this is unwarranted, literally. Privacy is a right. Privacy is a part of freedom.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Augi

The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).

this sounds like the old adage 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. This is 180 degrees different than what rights, liberty, and freedom is about. as will has said, it is unwarranted. Not only is it unwarranted, but it violates YOUR right to privacy, no matter how small the intrusion.

[Jinn]

Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.

I do not know of any state where some form of each of the above isn't a felony. DK brought up "habitual offender" in the case of driving under suspension because it is personally applicable and serves his agenda, but it is hardly the norm. When you say "felony", a reasonable person does not think of 'someone driving under suspension or revocation two or more times". If I were to be more explicit (since this "felon" argument is so pedantic), I support mandatory DNA submission when someone has been convicted of the felony version of any of the below:

aggravated assault and/or battery
arson
burglary
illegal drug sales (intent to distribute)
embezzlement
grand theft
treason
espionage
racketeering
robbery
murder
rape / sexual assault
sodomy
kidnapping
fraud

All of them demonstrate a disregard for person or property, and all of them indicate that any prosecuting you for future crimes you commit will be assisted by DNA evidence.

If the conviction is overturned on appeal or in light of new evidence, you have the right to request that your DNA be removed from the database.