 |
|
Under current policy, the state notifies law enforcement agencies only when a DNA test shows a complete match with someone who is in the state’s criminal database. But investigators have said they want to know when the state finds even a partial match, which could indicate that a relative committed the crime.
California’s 1 million DNA samples is the world’s third largest DNA database of criminal offenders, after the national databases in the U.S. and Great Britain. It will greatly expand next year, when DNA will be collected from anyone arrested for a crime, regardless of whether they are convicted.
Under the new policy, local law enforcement investigators also would be told when 15 or more of the 26 genetic markers match. An additional test would then be performed on the DNA’s Y chromosome, a requirement that limits the tests only to males. A statistical analysis would be used to predict whether the suspect is likely to be a close relative — a brother, father, son or grandfather.
The policy permits using an even lower standard than 15 matches in cases such as serial killings or rapes in which investigators have exhausted other leads.
I wonder if the 5th Amendment might then be set aside. Can you refuse to provide information or testify against your own DNA?
Silly commentary to start this thread. Near match DNA is a “clue.” It would be wrong for the state not to follow up every clue to find the criminal involved.
In no way are you giving up 5th Amendment rights or testifying against your DNA–that’s just plain ignorant or baseless fear mongering.
Scenario: “Mr Smith, we are investigating a crime and we have DNA that is a close match to your own meaning it is probably a family member or relative of yours was involved in a serious crime. What can you tell us about this?”
Hopefully criminals will get caught and innocent people will avoid injury and trauma.
Are you really against this?
This means only stupid criminals that leave trace evidence are going to be caught. The cops and prosecutors love picking the low hanging fruit.
#1 – silly commentary extends through the whole comment – including early construction of the straw man I guess you hope folks will respond to.
Few will oppose this because they don’t want criminals to be caught. Have you decided to be a dolt for the weekend?
There is no mention of due process or warrants in the law as proposed. All the decision-making lies within the state DOJ. The state intends to maintain a database which includes those found innocent as well as guilty – your DNA is taken if the coppers decide to arrest you.
Have you that much confidence in proper police procedures guiding every arrest in the great state of California – or any other? Do you support maintaining a DNA database on all citizens? For none will be exempt.
#3–Moss==you seem to float back and forth being pro and con the issue.
What straw man did I introduce?
Few would/should oppose this because they DO want criminals caught ((I assume a typo on your part)). Don’t we all? don’t you?
There is no due procress right in following up a clue. Like the Editor–I don’t think you understand constitutional rights nor the harm caused by criminals.
You ask: “Do you support maintaining a DNA database on all citizens?” /// Yes, I do. From Birth. The constitution and in my mind reasonably speaking, we have certain privacy rights. That does not include the right to be anonymous.
Will the State abuse this dna information? No doubt they will. Will they catch murderers and stop additional people from being killed?==Again, certainly yes.
So–match up the pain and misery of losing loved one’s to murderers vs violation of privacy rights that can be litigated when discovered. I prefer effective passive non-invasive police techniques. If you prefer not using science that is readily available, that is your preference.
you have the right to remain silent
except for what your DNA tells us
#1
The testify against yourself aspect of fifth amendment is gone, has been for awhile. And as usual bobbo misses the point completely. Its not that you testify against your own DNA you dolt. It is that your DNA is used to testify against you. It is in effect a part of you testifying against you.
In your scenario, I as Mr.Smith would tell the investigators to fuck off. And of course they wouldn’t and now I am being hassled because of something a relative did. Or I can tell them I know nothing about it and they of course won’t believe me and hassle me until I snitch. Yeah this is a good idea.
How about this scenario, my 2nd cousin rapes a 5 year old and leaves DNA. I got a traffic ticket for no seatbelt years ago and had to give a DNA sample. Now here they come knocking to see if I know who raped a 5year old. I don’t and tell them that, but they have proof that my DNA is similar to the rapists. Now I’m being waterboarded, because that isn’t torture, so I up the name of my second cousin, because I absolutely know what everyone in my extended family is doing at any given time. Its the children you know. And this is a child rapist. All bullshit, nanny-police state unconstitutional tactics.
For an aclu constitutionalist bobbo, you sure like to dismantle it at every turn. You just plain don’t make sense, first you say (in other threads) all politicians are suspect and idiots yet you are for more government involvement, control and power. Evidently you think more dolts and idiots will somehow become responsible. If the government can’t function properly now what makes you think it will with new powers of control. Your argument is, as always, backwards ass silly nonsense. Oh my bad you even agree with that, to wit: your very first sentence.
Isn’t the right to obtain an abortion on demand based on a woman’s right to privacy and to have control over her own body?
This isn’t meant to be pro or con abortion, BTW
Why should I have to give up DNA so that one of my immediate family could be determined guilty of a crime?
#6–Pirate==would I waterboard you as you suggest?–No.
#4
‘Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ – A letter from the Penn. Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Back when our elected officials represented the people not themselves and their own self-interest.
#8 bobbo-the-Troll
There you go again by putting words in my mouth. I didn’t suggest it you dolt I said they would do it and they will be using ignorant nanny-state laws such as this to justify their own crime against humanity. Reading comprehension, try it.
#10–Pirate. My bad. Would I waterboard you? Yes I would.
The foregoing was a joke. Seriously, would I do it was short hand for would I approve it, or recommend it, or think it was appropriate for the state to do it?==no. I was sloppy, but the meaning was clear.
The error in your construct at #9 is that no essential liberty is being given up. A legitimate function of society is to provide safety. You and other anonymity advocates confuse this.
I need to get my DNA copyrighted. Then I can charge what I like for its use and unauthorized possession/distribution of becomes illegal.
That way I can avoid being questioned for something my second cousin’s son with a hooker, from back in the navy days, does.
#12–Pirate==nope. Not even close.
#11
I confuse nothing, the right against self incrimination was an essential liberty, thats why it was put in the constitution, now with existing laws and proposed laws such as this parts of it have been made null and void without a vote of 2/3rds of the states, something else that is also unconstitutional.
As far as I am aware you, bobbo, are not the conscious of all politicians so what you would do is irrelevant.
#7–Ranger==you are seriously mixing up about 5-6 different issues. On the off chance you are being serious, the very short answer to your question is that from finger prints, to hair samples, to DNA–the law is that such things are objective evidence and not testimony.
Evidence can be collected without your permission. Testimony cannot be compelled absent a grant of immunity.
In this hypothetical, your DNA was previously collected because of some other earlier legal process.
bobbo, get yer comments right dude, this isn’t chat. #12 wasn’t a response to #11. Slow down on that fancy-man coffee.
#16–Pirate==commenting that you will copyright your DNA is not worth a long reply.
#17
I’m singing in the rain
Just singing in the rain
What a glorious feelin’
I’m happy again
I’m laughing at clouds
So dark up above
The sun’s in my heart
And I’m ready for love
Let the stormy clouds chase
Everyone from the place
Come on with the rain
I’ve a smile on my face
I walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
Just singin’,
Singin’ in the rain
The Pirate walks away leaving the crumpled remains of waterboarding bobbo lying on the pavement, sound once again in the knowledge that objective evidence has been expunged from the scene of the liberty preservation.
#18–Pirate==I like your flair and imagination. Just focus it a bit more on the actual subject of the thread and reasonable tangents therefrom.
You might also consider each thread being a new chance to establish your credibility and let go of old burdens.
#19
And I would buy you a beer after we fly in my Mooney Bravo to my favorite pub.
My focus is true and I don’t need the ass spanking I give you from other threads to establish credibility nor do I let them burden me.
#20–Pirate==there are several fly-in resorts in my area, all quite nice. My own favorite pubs are not co-located.
As you wish.
Get a frigging room you obviously deserve each other very much.
Bobbo, many people do NOT want criminals to be caught, depending on the type of law being broken. Having such large databases and surveillance makes it more likely that all criminals will be caught, which I am against. The government should have to expend resources to the point where they have to prioritize which crimes to pursue and which to leave alone.
#23–Mike==have you been this subtly funny all along and we liberdrools have just been missing it?
I hope not.
But seriously folks==no, I think people “feel” somehow they are at risk for being arrested for something they didn’t do–so prohibiting the fact gathering will make that fantasy harder to achieve.
I think its called “free floating paranoia.”
First, braves, go ahead and sotonize fingerprinting, Then, destroy the nuisance of molecular biology in full. Bravo!
Arrest everyone with DNA – they must be guilty of something.
They are talking about matching against DNA samples they already have in their database (ex. the anonymous suspect’s father previously committed a crime and so a partial match is made), not about asking family members to have their DNA tested after the fact. If they knew that much they’d just go after the actual suspect’s DNA.
#27: Once it’s established that “the bad man” was just a few branches away from you on a family tree, it’s not such a jump to coerce you and your male family members to provide samples “to eliminate you”.
It’s a very slippery slope.
#28–Zam==what would be wrong with that?
What is it about the “truth” that bothers you?