/dev/null Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli...69_dna04m0.html Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature.. Here's some random text because a certain someone doesn't like it when I post a link with a self explanatory thread title and no description Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The article is short on factual stuff (surprise). Are they saying give a sample before they're arraigned or convicted? I can see the logic of collecting all available evidence before a conviction (what's the point of getting evidence after a conviction), but before an arraignment would certainly stretch the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli...69_dna04m0.html . Here's some random text because a certain someone doesn't like it when I post a link with a self explanatory thread title and no description Actually, it was two. Cinci and Coli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'll have to do some more digging but I believe that this arises out of a case that happened where a young girl was kidnapped, raped and murdered by some guy (naturalized citizen) who managed to fly under the radar ...he did have some run-in with the law and officials were very frustrated that had his identity and background been detected during this routine detention, she might have been spared. If memory serves he was from southeast Asia and had either been a suspect or convicted of similar heinous crimes and somehow managed to conceal his identify when he entered the US decades ago. But maybe not...I don't like this law much myself. In principle it sounds good to ID the evildoers, but once the govt has a big DNA database then we're all at the mercy of some low-level clerk to code and read the results properly or the wrong person could end up on death row... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Actually, it was two. Cinci and Coli. Partisans reaching across the aisle to throttle the stupid in a bipartisan manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If used to generate a DNA Fingerprint for the database, how is it any different than giving fingerprints when arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Does that mean you can't be charged if you refuse to give a DNA sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Under the bill, authorities would destroy samples and DNA profiles obtained from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned. I call bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "I love this country. I love the freedoms we use to have." - George Carlin In the end, less freedom for citizens, and more jobs for Bureaucrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If used to generate a DNA Fingerprint for the database, how is it any different than giving fingerprints when arrested? It's not. Nor is it any different from the biometric photo/prints they make you take in some foreign airports. But DNA sounds scary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 The real question as with almost anything else is: "If we had this technology early on in our American society, would our forefathers have used it?" My answer: Like hell they wouldn't! Of course they would. And that is with everything we have today. Just imagine if Tom Sawyer had one of those new-fangled, plastic, maint-free fences... I always love these tech arguments. What is the difference between a DNA sample and a fingerprint? I especially love the people who give others guff about using caller ID to screen callers... The only reason we weren't first doing it was because the phone technology early on didn't enable it. Don't get me started... You commit a crime, collect the damn DNA sample as you would fingerprints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 It's not. Nor is it any different from the biometric photo/prints they make you take in some foreign airports. But DNA sounds scary! Why? Does a fingerprint databas scare you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why? Does a fingerprint databas scare you? Hey! Hillbilly! Nice one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Hey! Hillbilly! Nice one!! Mine is a legit typo... The difference is a problem with the sh*t between my ears and how it gets to my fingertips. What is your problem with the sh*t between your ears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Mine is a legit typo... The difference is a problem with the sh*t between my ears and how it gets to my fingertips. What is your problem with the sh*t between your ears? As much as it pains me to possibly agree with Eryn, he is in the right here. So suspicion is enough to add you to a database? Is that your stance? If the local Homeland Security guy dislikes you, he can ream over your whole life? Add you to a database? All terrorist types, one would imagine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 As much as it pains me to possibly agree with Eryn, he is in the right here. So suspicion is enough to add you to a database? Is that your stance? If the local Homeland Security guy dislikes you, he can ream over your whole life? Add you to a database? All terrorist types, one would imagine... And how is that different from now? What is to prevent some guy who doesn't like to from adding you the the Terrorist Watch List? These abuses you all fear - how does haveing a DNA code underlying things change them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 As much as it pains me to possibly agree with Eryn, he is in the right here. So suspicion is enough to add you to a database? Is that your stance? If the local Homeland Security guy dislikes you, he can ream over your whole life? Add you to a database? All terrorist types, one would imagine... "Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting..." Don't they all already enter arrested people into a "database?" What purpose do fingerprints serve? It is NOT purely suspicion, IMO... One has to be arrested first. Now, I would agree with you if what you say is the really the case. Again... Isn't a DNA sample just a very accurate "fingerprint?" I am sorry, I see no difference in taking one's fingerprints OR DNA sample upon booking a suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts