by Glander 27 Replies latest social current
Just another intrusion into the privacy rights of the individual. Soon enough, they'll have you swab for a speeding ticket. Eventually every newborn baby (just like footprints and handprints). In a matter of time, EVERYONE will have their DNA on file.
Welcome to 1984. (George was off on his dates as much as the JWs, but at least his predictions are coming true.)
Doc
My initial thought is that it takes away some freedom. I think it also sets up police to frame people. You know? When they are sure a person did something, but don't have the evidence to support their theory. Perhaps the person is innocent, but the police claim the dna was left at the scene. And yes, police sometimes want to prove a person gulity, even if they aren't. It's easier than continuing their search for the real rapist/killer, etc.
How do you think the police could physically do that FHN?
There would have to be a chain of evidence from the crime scene evidence, hair, blood, semen, etc. that would match a certain persons DNA in the archive. It would be pretty difficult for a dishonest prosecutor to plant later.
A rapist would have to leave some DNA from another person. Ithink there was a book and movie about a wife who secretly saved her husbands semen and then planted it on another woman after she killed her.
There are many mistakes done in the DNA labs.
Accidental mislabelling, contamination. The courts have trusted DNA evidence too much. There was an expose of the misleading information given by firms doing the tests in the New Scientist magazine about three years ago.
HB
The security guards in our local prison let the back of their hands be scanned. Apparently we all have a unique pattern of blood vessels, which the scanner can detect. Unlike the Mission Impossible episodes, this can't be faked with a silicon imprint or a severed hand.
I like the idea of a hand scan rather than an eye scan. I don't want no laser near my eye.
I don't see how swabbing someone's mouth is much different than a fingerprint. It's an investigative technique - it would be silly to need to convict someone first to take their DNA. The whole point of the DNA evidnce is to identify criminals and to convict. If there is sufficient legal grounds to arrest someone, I don't have a problem with it. I think being able to find out if someone who is arrested for a minor crime might be responsible for unsolved more serious ones is a greater concern than avoiding state databases.
I read Joseph Wambaugh's "The Blooding..." (1989) a true story about solving the murders of 2 schoolgirls in the UK through the emerging DNA science.
I have my newborn footprints on my birth certificate, (1945? that can't be right!) I have been fingerprinted and photo ID'd for getting a liqour license and for a visitors badge to the county jail when I was "clergy" .
I think gathering DNA is way overdue as a tool for law enforcement.
In the words of Maury Povich "Willy,.......you ARE the father!"
People forget that DNA evidence has also freed a significant number of people wrongly incareted for crimes they didn't commit. I agree that it is no different than getting fingerprints taken...maybe less time consuming.
FHN...why would you think that police would try and "frame" someone with DNA? That is more the stuff of conspiracy theories, than reality.
| "...People forget that DNA evidence has also freed a significant number of people wrongly incareted for crimes they didn't commit..." | |
| tenyearsafter |
I want to agree with you on that. It goes both ways around. As long as someone is innocent, there would be no concern to worry. I strongly supports DNA test to help law enforcement in resolving unresolved crimes.
Scott77
