Posted on 03/26/2009 11:53:26 AM PDT by LibWhacker
NO. See post 74
If being convicted of a felony actually meant something, then there might be a reason for DNA samples to be taken, but to make it a blanket procedure done on anyone who's convicted of a felony? No.
So what? Abortion is legal but that doesn't make it right either.
DNA collection may be legal and have the support of the courts, but it doesn't make that right.
I felt that I was doing a rather good thing in ID typing convicted felons for the State of Virginia. The reports from the Sheriffs department telling us how many rapes and murders we solved tended to confirm my view.
So you think collecting DNA ID data from convicted felons is actually analogous to abortion, or are you just intellectually lazy and trying to score cheap emotional points?
How do you feel that having a database of genetic markers of criminals is fundamentally different then taking their fingerprint?
Are you against the taking of the fingerprints of convicted felons?
It is easier to not leave behind fingerprints than it is to not leave behind DNA, especially in rapes and murders; which are the crimes where the DNA swipe kit comes out for the most often.
Re read post 81. How many times does one have to say *No* before you get it?
So, which part of *No* don’t you understand? The *N* or the *o*?
Yes, my apologies, I read them out of order. Apparently you did the same as I acknowledge you said no in the subsequent post.
Adding some old links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/national/10cape.html
http://www.wgbh.org/cainan/article?item_id=3097878
"We're trying to find that person who has something to hide," Sergeant Perry said.
Just because someone doesn't want their DNA collected, doesn't mean they have something to hide. What an underhanded way to get DNA samples.
This is no different that the police sweeps where they come around and ask permission to search your house for illegal guns. Anyone who doesn't have any, doesn't have anything to worry about and should let them in so they reason that anyone who doesn't let them in, must have illegal guns or they would have no reason to keep the police out.
And once they decline, then they become suspect not only of that crime, but of anything. So, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I don't trust the government as far as I can spit.
Jeepers allmendream — I think you're missing PapaBear's point. Who determines whether someone is an "enemy of the state" or an "illegal gun owner" in the first place? It seems to me you are remarkably blythe about this danger.
And naïve about this one:
The people get the government they vote for. If they vote for stupidity, on their own head be it, and hopefully a few years of socialist incompetence will teach them better.So what if a "few years of socialist incompetence will teach them better." The real issue is, being now in a more realistically informed state, whether they would then be in any position to rectify the damage, having been thoroughly stripped of their liberties....
My question was, do you think that being a convicted felon is not probable cause for the government to collect DNA data?
Do you?
No, because being a convicted felon only means you were convicted of a crime, not necessarily guilty of committing one.
Think OJ in reverse. Think of the thousands of botched cases. All those rape cases overturned with DNA. And corruption, people planiting evidence, etc.
But it would be exploited in so many ways we haven’t thought of.
This is just a precursor to having a bar code stamped into your forehead or palm of your hand.
That was very clever of her, leaving her DNA on all those cotton swabs and then going out and killing people. She has committed the perfect crime(s).
Sounds like an episode of CSI.
How about if he’s an “illegal” gun owner or “enemy of the State”?
....or knuckle-dragging FReeper?
What scenario are you envisioning whereby a non violent criminal gets identified by DNA? They find his DNA where exactly? What type of crime scene?
I watched an episode of CSI NY, that covered this nearly exact situation, the one with Gary Sinise...his employee used to run in a tough NY neighborhood, and he turned out OK but his brother didn't. His brother was involved in burying a body in a stadium several years ago. But they found DNA off a cigarette butt that put the CSI agent (good brother) at the scene. Turns out that at the time the bad brother was trying to quit smoking and took the partially finished butt from his brother for later, put it behind his ear, forgot about it and it fell out while he was burying the body.
The implication being the good brother was the culprit.
Luckily, it was in the script that the error was found, otherwise the innocent borther might spend the rest of his days behind bars.
I truly wonder how many DNA cases have resulted in error, as opposed to rectifying errors.
An indictment unsealed Friday says 54-year-old Qing Song of Santa Rosa imported picks or raw shells of the Hawksbill sea turtle from China and sold them in California. It's illegal to trade endangered wildlife without a permit for scientific research or other approved, noncommercial use.
Some musicians prefer shell picks over plastic picks because they believe the shells produce a superior tone.
Song is charged with two misdemeanors and a felony count of trading in endangered species. She also is accused of selling 74 picks and possessing another 899.
Records did not indicate she has a lawyer.
My previous point about too many things being felonies is illustrated here. Most people hear felon and think Al Capone, nowadays it's just as likely that it's a 54 year old grandma selling guitar picks. Obviously she's a hardened career criminal and WE NEED HER DNA!!!!!!
You mean we can’t trust the government to make wise decisions???????
Many so-called conservative have forgotten that the federal government shouldn’t do 95% of the stuff that it currently does and for good reason, they don’t do most things efficiently or capably. Not to mention that it goes against that old, tattered document, the U.S. Constitution.
Since that's a typical eugenic way of thinking, it's not surprising to see a Darwinian (allmendream) advocating it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.