Posted on 12/07/2004 12:57:18 PM PST by SmithL
Background checks on firearm purchases will be instant. Just wait for them to examine your doctor's psychological profile (you haven't been depressed have you?), your criminal background, and ADD this purchase to your permanent record (and you thought that what happened at grade school STAYED in grade school).
So do career criminals, and they applaud your stand on their behalf.
How often does it happen that fingerprints taken in one case match those found in another? Rather frequently.
If someone is arrested and printed, and later released, their prints sit in a database and do nothing, unless those prints later match a crime scene. The world is imperfect, but that's a better one than you're proposing, which would leave many crimes unsolved and unprevented.
1/3 of arrestees are found not guilty or never prosecuted.
SF Chronicle: Proposition 69 could threaten privacy of DNA:
The numbers are significant. In his advance release of Crime in California 2003, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer reported in July that there were just over half a million felony arrests -- not convictions -- in the state. Under Proposition 69, all 507,081 would be required to relinquish their genetic material -- even though statistics show that approximately one third of those arrested would have the charges dismissed or be found not guilty in a court of law.Under Proposition 69, approximately 170,000 INNOCENT people would submit their DNA to the state.
And darker yet. (I get it -- and don't like it!)
You tryin' to ruin my whole evening? LOL
Not without Proposition 89 they didn't. One of its functions was to authorize the swabbing of prisoners and including their DNA signatures in a database.
Non-previous criminals (Suspects): get a warrant for DNA.
Proposition 69 doesn't affect suspects, permission or a warrant would still be required. All you're left arguing about is arrestees.
I can't beleive I'm going to say this but, the ACLU is right on this one...damn, I can't beleive I said that!
Anyway, here's MY definition of what ACLU stands for:
Assinine Liberal Communists Utopia!
Without Proposition 69, the same number of arrestees would still be cuffed, detained, and fingerprinted. I suppose we shouldn't do any of those things either.
If we are going to tag and release (no prosecution) then EVERYONE needs to be tagged. Otherwise it is incomplete.
You agree? The unsolved cases outweigh your own privacy, right?
And if you are pulled in as the suspect in a case you weren't involved in, you can handle the expense and the media harassment, no?
You agree? The unsolved cases outweigh your own privacy, right?
No, the police have more discretion with arrestees than they do with Joe Citizen, including handcuffs, detention, and fingerprinting. SOP. Proposition 69 adds the dreaded oral swab to the list
And if you are pulled in as the suspect in a case you weren't involved in, you can handle the expense and the media harassment, no?
It happens so often, I'm used to it.
Proposition 69 will not affect the likelihood that I will be mistakenly arrested.
What are we talking about? Fingerprints or DNA?
You seemed quite content to let innocent people remain in a database of fingerprints because of unsolved cases. We could solve even more of those cases if everyone was in there.
Now you want people who were wrongly accused to remain there. Or is EVERYONE guilty, just not successfully prosecuted?
Yes I am content to do just that.
Do you see no difference between fingerprinting arrestees and fingerprinting everyone?
Nope not when you include the innocent. Why some innocent but not others?
If it is so good, put everyone in there.
If there is no abuse, put everyone in there.
None of this "us and them". Some people want a red light district established where people can do "things". No one wants it in their neighborhood/backyard.
Why are some people arrested, and not others? That's life.
Speaking of life, think for a moment on yours -- who has had more negative impact on your civil liberties, criminals or the police?
I submit that far more people are victims of crime than are mistakenly arrested.
"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"
LOL. I'm with ya!
Yet slippery slope arguments are, of course, fallacious.
Take your fingerprinting example -- is everyone now required to give fingerprints? No.
What happened to that slope?
San Diego Union TribuneExisting law states that any person convicted of a serious or violent felony, including rape and murder, must give a DNA sample so that it can be compared with DNA evidence from crime scenes for a possible match.
This measure would gradually expand the number of people required to give a DNA sample: all convicted felons, all convicted of a sex offense, including a misdemeanor, and all arrested for felony sex offenses, murder or voluntary manslaughter.
In 2009, all adults arrested for any felony offense would have to give a sample.
Their agenda is a two class system: (1)Those non-Christians in power...and(2) those who will do as they are told.
Ther ACLU is not a warm, multi-religious, fuzzy or fair minded organization of lawyers.
it is outlined in the law itself. The criteria for who is subject to the test is expanding and is captures an increasingly less violent offender.
The expansions have taken place with new laws, not with expansions of the old laws. To say that a law will necessarily lead to some further unacceptable form of that law is to engage in the fallacy.
Slide to the bottom and what then? All applying for a drivers license?
Does Proposition 69 require DNA samples for drivers licenses? That would require another law, and that law would not pass.
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.