Mass DNA test for town

[Roadtoad]

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

No, we've just had some cops busted in and around this area over the past few years for planting evidence.

I don't need to have something to hide. No one should need to. Nor am I paranoid. That's a strawman. The Constitution is supposed to protect ALL of us.

 

[Matabiri]

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.

Does anyone know, when the police "keep DNA samples", do they actually keep the biological material (in case of future research), or do they just keep the chromatographic trace produced by the test? If the former, you're right; if it's the latter, it really is little more than a bar code.

Also (although this may be another topic entirely) does anyone know if the chromatographs can actually be "read" for genetic information, or are they like fingerprints - unique, but do not provide more information?

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

Would you feel the same if it weren't a DNA sample? What if it were fingerprints? If they asked for you to hand over your jacket for fiber samples? If they wanted to take fiber samples from your carpet? If they wanted a cast of your tires? If they wanted to see your left arm to see if you had a certain tattoo? If they wanted to see your left buttock to see if you had a certain tattoo? If, like in a Michael Jackson case, they wanted to photograph your genitals? Take a mold of your bite to match against a wound? Spit sample? Urine sample? Stool sample? Semen sample?

If you have nothing to hide, would you object to any of these things? If so, why? Where would you draw the line? And what would be your justification for drawing it where you do?

 

[Tmy]

First off, the guy is a murderer not a rapist. they think it was concensual sex.

2nd.....Whats the big deal if they never find the guy. As long as he doesnt kill anyone again. Does it really affect anyone.

I think Chief Wiggum said it best, "better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to chase after them."

Sides, I dont trust the police. They could plant my DNA at the scene or somthing! Look what they did to OJ!

 

[Roadtoad]

If you have nothing to hide, would you object to any of these things? If so, why? Where would you draw the line? And what would be your justification for drawing it where you do?

It's one thing if a police officer says: "Sir, we have information that may link you to a crime. We have three eyewitnesses, (or one or two), and we have some tissue samples. May we ask you for a DNA sample to make a comparison?"

My response is, Yes. It will clear me. I've not done anything that I can think of.

It's something else when a police officer says: "Sir, we have a woman who was raped. She says a man did it. You are a man. May we ask you for a DNA sample to make a comparison?"

My response is, Go f*** yourself. You have NO evidence that would even closely link ANYONE to this crime. You're out fishing blindly, and you haven't even attempted to do your job. Why would I trust you with my DNA if you can't even be bothered to go out and conduct an actual investigation? You're a slob and an incompetent, and why should I support that?

If you'll violate my civil rights in that manner, what other rights will you violate? Sergeant David Perry has already told us: Anyone who refuses will immediately become a person of interest.

Now, who's paranoid?

 

[Matabiri]

If you have nothing to hide, would you object to any of these things? If so, why? Where would you draw the line? And what would be your justification for drawing it where you do?

Because they're a waste of a lot of people's time. After all, the presumption is innocence.

If, on the other hand, I was one of a small number of people under suspicion, and the easiest way to clear my name was some physiological test which didn't really interfere with my life (i.e. they come to me; they're polite - after all, I'm doing them a favour by removing myself from their list easily and quickly - I know I'm innocent, so suspicion wastes their time not mine; etc.) and it was ensured that the material would be destroyed after innocence was established - I'm innocent, so the police have no place assuming I'm going to commit crimes in the future - then I would do the tests.

The point is, of course, the relationship between the state and the people. Procedure should reflect that they are public servants, and have no place ordering people around randomly.

 

[Tmy]

Who says she was raped??? What if shes the town tramp, and you did have sex with her early that day. When you left she was happy as a clam. Later on someone came along and killed her.

Now you had nothing to do with her deadining, but if you come forward with your cock n bull story, you think the cops are gonna buy into it??? THey are gonna pin the murder on you. Its obvious they have no one else to blame. Giving them your DNA would be hanging yourself.

 

[Roadtoad]

The point is, of course, the relationship between the state and the people. Procedure should reflect that they are public servants, and have no place ordering people around randomly.

I do not trust the Sacramento Police Department.

 

[rikzilla]

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).

I recently finished Ann Rule's latest book "Green River Running Red", about Washington state's "Green River Killer". The GRK murdered 48 women (that they know of) between 1982 and 2001. The police knew who this guy was though by 1988 when they got enough circumstantial evidence on him to get search warrants. They searched everything the guy owned, yet found no conclusive evidence. On a whim though, before turning him loose, they did a DNA swab from his mouth just in case...DNA testing was in experimental stages back then.

Well, they kept the DNA evidence on ice until 2001 when someone in the King county police dept submitted it for DNA testing. (It turns out that not only is DNA testing expensive, there's a rather large backlog of samples to test)

So, old DNA evidence kept for years finally ended the GRK's killing streak. Not exactly a bad thing. Apparently keeping DNA evidence is not illegal. Once they have your DNA profile they can store it as a data file on a computer. The police are working up national DNA registries right now. Your DNA profile will likely be encoded into your official documents such as ID or passport someday soon.

If you don't like it, don't leave your DNA at a crime scene. As long as DNA is really as infallible as they say it is we shouldn't be too freaked out by it. After all, without it the GRK would still be out there taking victims. As would alot of other rapists and murderers. Not only that, but DNA evidence has led to the release of several innocent men imprisoned wrongly.

-z

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I recently finished Ann Rule's latest book "Green River Running Red", about Washington state's "Green River Killer". The GRK murdered 48 women (that they know of) between 1982 and 2001. The police knew who this guy was though by 1988 when they got enough circumstantial evidence on him to get search warrants. They searched everything the guy owned, yet found no conclusive evidence. On a whim though, before turning him loose, they did a DNA swab from his mouth just in case...DNA testing was in experimental stages back then.

Well, they kept the DNA evidence on ice until 2001 when someone in the King county police dept submitted it for DNA testing. (It turns out that not only is DNA testing expensive, there's a rather large backlog of samples to test)

So, old DNA evidence kept for years finally ended the GRK's killing streak. Not exactly a bad thing. Apparently keeping DNA evidence is not illegal. Once they have your DNA profile they can store it as a data file on a computer. The police are working up national DNA registries right now. Your DNA profile will likely be encoded into your official documents such as ID or passport someday soon.

If you don't like it, don't leave your DNA at a crime scene. As long as DNA is really as infallible as they say it is we shouldn't be too freaked out by it. After all, without it the GRK would still be out there taking victims. As would alot of other rapists and murderers. Not only that, but DNA evidence has led to the release of several innocent men imprisoned wrongly.

-z

DNA proves that you (or someone who was in contact with you) was at the scene of a crime.

Nothing more.

 

[aerocontrols]

I won't be giving the State a sample of my DNA.

It would expose me as an extra-terrestrial.

 

[toddjh]

As far as I can tell, the only issue here is whether the police department in question has done anything illegal. Is it illegal to ask for DNA samples? As long as there's no coercion involved, I don't see how.

Is it illegal to focus your investigation on people who choose not to cooperate? Of course not, as long as their rights are not violated along the way. I haven't followed this story very closely; is there any indication that the police intend to perform this investigation improperly? I hear a lot of talk about search warrants. Did any law enforcement agent say anything about that?

A police department using legal means to narrow down the field of possible suspects doesn't seem like something to get upset about to me. At the very least, we should wait until they actually do something wrong before we get upset.

Jeremy

 

[crimresearch]

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.

If the possible detection of those rapists you mention is the prevailing rationale for law, and no one should have the right to be free from self incrimination, then you are not only OKing forced DNA tests (which is exactly what it is, your protests notwithstanding), you have opened the door for torture to extract confessions.

You do realize that is what the 5th amendment was designed to prevent, don't you?

Or do think that such protections work just fine as long as we only ignore them when it is convenient for the government?

 

[pgwenthold]

Is it illegal to focus your investigation on people who choose not to cooperate? Of course not, as long as their rights are not violated along the way.

Making someone a suspect because they refuse to cooperate with a search for which you had no reason to conduct is pretty much by definition a violation of their rights, and therefore by your assessment, would be illegal.

 

[pgwenthold]

As far as I can tell, the only issue here is whether the police department in question has done anything illegal. Is it illegal to ask for DNA samples? As long as there's no coercion involved, I don't see how.

Also, isn't "You will be a suspect if you don't cooperate" an example of coercion?

 

[Luke T.]

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.

Since I am innocent, how exactly would my refusal to participate be affecting the rights of others in any way?

edited to add: To answer your question, if I volunteered to give my DNA, my rights are not being denied. But that isn't the issue. The issue is my right to NOT volunteer.

 

[toddjh]

Making someone a suspect because they refuse to cooperate with a search for which you had no reason to conduct is pretty much by definition a violation of their rights, and therefore by your assessment, would be illegal.

Who says anyone has the right not to be a suspect? In the U.S., you have the right to be secure against improper search and seizure, to avoid self-incrimination, not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law, and a score of others, but that doesn't mean the police can't think you might have done it, and pursue lawful means of determining whether that's the case while respecting the rights you do have.

If the police find someone who matches the description of a killer and was known to be in the area of the crime, and that person refuses to answer any questions at all, refuses to give a DNA sample, and immediately asks for a lawyer, are you really telling me the police would be violating his rights if they chose to make him the emphasis of their investigation?

Now, I'm not saying the fact that he refused to cooperate would be reason enough to detain him, or issue a search warrant on his property. I'm saying that I think the police would be justified keeping an eye on him, and checking out his background to see if a case against him holds water.

Also, isn't "You will be a suspect if you don't cooperate" an example of coercion?

Nah. If you really didn't do it, the investigation will lead away from you regardless.

Jeremy

 

[crimresearch]

The premise that only guilty people should refuse to give the police evidence is founded on TV scripts, not the Constitution.

The notion that no one could ever be harmed by giving up their DNA is naive.


And it is amazing how quickly eveyone has conveniently forgotten Richard Jewell.

 

[pgwenthold]

Who says anyone has the right not to be a suspect?

It's not that you can't be a suspect, it is that you can't be a suspect for refusing to comply with an unconstitutional search, which is what a baseless DNA test would be.

Just as the police can't just go down the street asking to search every house on the block, and then calling you a suspect because you refused to let them come in without a search warrent.

 

[pgwenthold]

Nah. If you really didn't do it, the investigation will lead away from you regardless.

So everyone is considered guilty until they are proven innocent?

And of course, it's not like our justice system has never convicted an innocent person...