Mass DNA test for town

[shecky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4161983.stm

Police in a small town in Massachusetts are hoping to test the DNA of the entire adult male population as they try to solve a three-year-old murder.

Truro officials say the 790 men in the town have a right to refuse but those who do so will be closely checked.

Does this idea bother anyone else? Kinda seems like the govt saying, "Voluntarily give up some of your privacy, or we might take it from you anyway."

I think every one of the 790 men ought to refuse. That way the police can "closely check" ( I guess it depends what that means) every viable lead they way they're supposed to.

Anyone got more info on this story?

 

[crimresearch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4161983.stm



Does this idea bother anyone else? Kinda seems like the govt saying, "Voluntarily give up some of your privacy, or we might take it from you anyway."

I think every one of the 790 men ought to refuse. That way the police can "closely check" ( I guess it depends what that means) every viable lead they way they're supposed to.

Anyone got more info on this story?

TMY brought this up a while back, and I asked for a source for the bit about people refusing to cooperate becoming suspects (he had claimed a pollice officer from Cape Cod said it, the above link mentions anonymous Truro 'officials'.

I would hate to think that there was a judge out there who would issue a search warrant based on nothing more than "He's male, and he refused to give us a DNA sample, and we have absolutely nothing else on him, so we want to go fishing and dig up something".

 

[shecky]

TMY brought this up a while back, and I asked for a source for the bit about people refusing to cooperate becoming suspects (he had claimed a pollice officer from Cape Cod said it, the above link mentions anonymous Truro 'officials'.

FWIW, NYT article points to Sgt. David Perry of the Truro Police Department:
(reg. req'd... sorry)

Sgt. David Perry of the Truro Police Department and other law enforcement authorities here say that the program is voluntary but that they will pay close attention to those who refuse to provide DNA.

"We're trying to find that person who has something to hide," Sergeant Perry said.

 

[Roadtoad]

This scares the hell out of me. Why in God's name should I support a fishing expedition for ANY police department. If I didn't do anything, I have nothing to worry about, right?

Except there's something to be said for the Constitution and its prohibition against unreasonable searches. A demand for my DNA is unreasonable, and I'd be damned if I'd put up with being labeled a "person if interest" if I refused to submit to this crap.

And if Sergeant Perry were in my presence, I'd tell him right now what to kiss, and where to kiss it; provided he could find his with both hands and remove his head, first.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The problem I have with mass DNA testing is that in the past police forces have been caught keeping DNA samples on file even when it was illegal. Basically, they like having your DNA on file just in case they want it one day.

If the samples were taken, tested, and then destroyed I'd have absolutely no problem with giving a DNA sample. (If they wanted a blood sample they could nick off, though. I don't like needles).

 

[Luke T.]

Mass DNA testing has yielded some results in the UK and Germany but has been less successful in the US.

Six years ago, German police investigating the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl matched one man's sample to evidence prompting a confession.

More than 16,000 samples were taken, in what is thought to have been the biggest mass test to date.

So the bad guy in the German case volunteered his DNA to the police?

 

[crimresearch]

"So the bad guy in the German case volunteered his DNA to the police?"


Zee polezei haff ways of making them 'volunteer'

It may be different today, but about 15 years ago, my faculty advisor was working with the German police, and there was a rape in which the victim described let us say, a 'non-Aryan' attacker.

The police pulled out a file, determined that there were 64 men of that particular skin color in that town, and ordered them all to report and provide samples. Nobody was asked if they wanted to do it.

Supposedly we don't do things that way in this country...
the police can *ask* you if you wish to self incriminate all day long, but they can't use your polite refusal as PC.

It sounds like someone had a bright idea to break loose a frustrating investigation, and it has spun out of control.


BTW, thank you Shecky for the link.

 

[Elind]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4161983.stm



Does this idea bother anyone else? Kinda seems like the govt saying, "Voluntarily give up some of your privacy, or we might take it from you anyway."

I think every one of the 790 men ought to refuse. That way the police can "closely check" ( I guess it depends what that means) every viable lead they way they're supposed to.

Anyone got more info on this story?

No doubt this may sound terribly naive to many here, who live in fear of identification for reasons best known to themselves. If something like that happened in my little town I would be happy to comply. Why the hell wouldn't I? I can't think of a single good reason, and if I was blown to little pieces one day, someone would be able to identify my remains with the DNA as a bonus.

I'll bet most of the naysayers are those who don't even know the names of their neighbors. Get a life.

 

[crimresearch]

Those 'naysayers' as you call them would include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, et al., and centuries of US Supreme Court justices....and I'll bet that the most overlooked of them had 100 times the life you'll ever get.

 

[Bjorn]

If the samples were taken, tested, and then destroyed I'd have absolutely no problem with giving a DNA sample. (If they wanted a blood sample they could nick off, though. I don't like needles).

The problem I have with mass DNA testing is that in the past police forces have been caught keeping DNA samples on file even when it was illegal. Basically, they like having your DNA on file just in case they want it one day.

If you'd say yes every time they asked for it, why would you worry if they kept a sample the first time?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you'd say yes every time they asked for it, why would you worry if they kept a sample the first time?

To the extent that DNA is just a uniquely identifying bar code, I'd worry about letting them keep a sample because the law does not necessarily coincide with what I believe to be right, and the law enforcement system does not always restrict itself to enforcing the law.

However the main thing is that DNA is more than just a bar code. The technology and science to learn much about me (and my relatives) from my DNA doesn't exist yet but I will probably live to see it in daily use. The police do not need to have access to my medical records without a search warrant and a good reason, and by the same token they do not need to have access to the details of my biochemistry and that of all my relatives.

I feel that if the police want DNA samples they should have to ask for them on a case-by-case basis, and they should not be allowed to keep samples from people who are not convicted felons. If I want to be identified by DNA samples when I get blown up my doctor can keep a sample with the rest of my medical details. The police don't need it and should not have it.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

(If they wanted a blood sample they could nick off, though. I don't like needles).

Which is exactly the excuse used in the first UK case by the perpetrator to convince his workmate to give a sample for him. He was ultimately caught only after the workmate told the police what he had done. (Assuming I remember the book on the case correctly - its been a few years.)

 

[Tmy]

There was an update of this story in the news today. Seems that the ACLU has stepped in. I think teh big beef is how they "take note" of those who refuse. Plus its a very inefficent way to investigate a murder. DNA testing is not cheap ya know!

Ill look for a link.

 

[Elind]

Those 'naysayers' as you call them would include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, et al., and centuries of US Supreme Court justices....and I'll bet that the most overlooked of them had 100 times the life you'll ever get.

Please, stop the silly name dropping and tell us why you would rather let a rapist walk free than positively elimnate yourself from the suspects.

This is not some generalized demand for all citizens to have all their details recorded for unknown purposes as all you high minded philosophers like to pretend. You exaggerate your own self importance.

 

[Tmy]

Here it is. I for one wouldnt trust DA MAN with my DNA. Plus, what happens if I want to commit a crime in the future!



Civil rights advocates asked Cape Cod authorities on...

BOSTON (AP) Civil rights advocates asked Cape Cod authorities on Monday to stop collecting DNA samples from men in Truro in their investigation into the 3-year-old murder of fashion writer Christa Worthington.

Calling the effort ''a serious intrusion on personal privacy'' that is unlikely to yield results, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts sent a letter to Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe and Truro Police Chief John Thomas, urging them to end the mass collection of DNA samples.

 

[Luke T.]

This is not some generalized demand for all citizens to have all their details recorded for unknown purposes as all you high minded philosophers like to pretend. You exaggerate your own self importance.

I don't think it's possible to exaggerate the importance of my rights.

 

[Roadtoad]

Please, stop the silly name dropping and tell us why you would rather let a rapist walk free than positively elimnate yourself from the suspects.

This is not some generalized demand for all citizens to have all their details recorded for unknown purposes as all you high minded philosophers like to pretend. You exaggerate your own self importance.

Sorry, but Constitutionally, before I can be searched in any way shape or form, the Police must FIRST have some reason to conduct a search.

Deciding to search me simply because I carry the "Y" chromasome is a piss-poor reason to have me come in and donate DNA.

Just a question for you: Are there bad cops out there?

 

[Elind]

I don't think it's possible to exaggerate the importance of my rights.

I think it is, when you completely dismiss the right of others who may be affected by your fears. It is you who exaggerate your self importance.

I repeat. If you give your DNA, say, under the condition that it is destroyed by the testing lab once a match/no match is determined and only that result is provided to your fearsome police, how are your rights denied? Your right to refuse participation in the society you depend on?

This is a particular circumstance and I don't advocate forceful compliance, but I advocate contempt of those who place themselves above all others on such basis.

 

[Elind]

Sorry, but Constitutionally, before I can be searched in any way shape or form, the Police must FIRST have some reason to conduct a search.

Deciding to search me simply because I carry the "Y" chromasome is a piss-poor reason to have me come in and donate DNA.

Just a question for you: Are there bad cops out there?

Give me a break. You must have something to hide, or are suffering from an overinflated ego tainted by paranoia.

 

[Elind]

Here it is. I for one wouldnt trust DA MAN with my DNA. Plus, what happens if I want to commit a crime in the future!

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. One day rape may be my only option for sex.