White House Seeks to Expand DNA DATABASE...

USA Today ^ | 4/15/2003 | Richard Willing

[michaelje]

WASHINGTON

[mabelkitty]

Actually, I know several people that have the same names, live in the same state, have similar physical characteristics.

DNA won't necessarily take care of who to arrest.

[dirtboy]

Well, if the DNA sample is taken from an arrested person because a law permits the government to do it, then by definition that's due process of law.

And if they are acquitted, there is no penalty or punishment assigned. That is also part of due process. If you allow the government to put the DNA of an innocent man in a criminal database, it's just a simple additional step to have EVERYONE submit their DNA - because you have trampled over due process to achieve your goals.

[kesg]

Anyone in any of these places has access to your DNA. It's like identity theft...they don't steal *your* identity, they steal *a* identity. One that isn't theirs.

If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that someone can plant your DNA in an attempt to incriminate you. I don't disagree with you on this point. It seems to me, howevever, that our legal system can deal with this problem without throwing out DNA evidence altogether. Without necessarily directing this next comment at you, many of the arguments in this thread strike me as variations on a theme that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Protagoras]

Well, if the DNA sample is taken from an arrested person because a law permits the government to do it, then by definition that's due process of law.

Nonsense. Due process has nothing to do with legislation.

Not to mention, laws don't trump the constitution.

The Fourth Amendment issue is separate -- a law that permits an unreasonable search satisfies due process but nevertheless still violates the Fourth Amendment -- but here as well Congress is entitled to determine whether such a search is reasonable in the cases of persons who are arrested. If the arrestee thinks that the search is unreasonable despite the law, he can ask a court to declare the law unconstitutional, either generally or as applied to him in the particular case. My guess is that he would lose, and deservedly so.

No offence, but you need a remedial course in civics. You have a flawed understanding of the constitution and rights.

[Black Agnes]

How on earth you could you, the defendant, prove someone else planted your DNA? The whole basis of DNA databases is proving your innocence. The opposite of our form of justice.

[kesg]

You are willingly giving up freedoms to law enforcement. Why would you do such a thing?

But I'm not. The freedom worth valuing and protecting is freedom of thought and action, subject only to the limitation that in so acting I don't deprive others of their freedom of thought and action. I don't see how giving a DNA sample infringes upon this freedom, and I see many ways in which it may enhance that freedom by enabling the government to do a better job of law enforcement than it otherwise could do without this information.

[inquest]

If the arrestee thinks that the search is unreasonable despite the law, he can ask a court to declare the law unconstitutional, either generally or as applied to him in the particular case.

Whatever happened to simply being able to opt out?

[kesg]

How would a DNA database secure your individual rights?

See my other responses in this thread, but the short answer is because it enables the government to do a better job of law enforcement, which is part of what any good government does to secure my individual rights.

[mabelkitty]

Exactly - they would have pulled it from the database and tried him in court, and saved all those pesky lawsuits he filed for libel.

This is a perfect example of why they don't need to have the DNA or medical records.

[mabelkitty]

The legislation is called the Constitution.

How old are you?

[Black Agnes]

Would you rather have a few OJ's or a whole lot of Richard Jewells? The job of the Constitution isn't to make that of law enforcement *easier*. How on earth have we managed to live as a civil society for 200+ years and have any crimes at all solved before the DNA database? I can deal with law enforecment not being 100% in catching criminals because I know that God will deal with them eventually even if *we* don't do it now on Earth. Our prisons are full to overflowing, obviously law enforcement is catching criminals. I'd rather have a Constitution with teeth than live in a police state. (When legislatures pass laws to the benefit of law enforcement at the expense of the rights of the citizens...you live in a police state)

[kesg]

What does any of this have to do with whether a national DNA database is a good idea? I'm happy to stipulate that many things now classified as "crimes" should not be so classified. This fact doesn't change the fact that other things, also classified as crimes, very definitely should be so classified, crimes such as murder or rape in which DNA evidence often proves to be very helpful in convicting the guilty or acquitting the innocent.

[kesg]

You obviously work for the government and you see this as a good career move. Lookin' to transfer departments?

I am not employed by the government, although I do pay obsene amounts to the government in the form of taxes.

[mabelkitty]

Actually, I agree.

Armed citizens can do the job much better than LE. LE is paid to stay and wait for a violation to occur.

Armed militia would react as soon as it happens.

Who do you think criminals would fear most? Those that have to do cumbersome paperwork and get to the scene, or the people who are chasing your ass down the street?

[Black Agnes]

It isn't the job of law enforcement to secure your individual rights. Government does not grant or give any rights. Merely protect them. You haven't answered why having law enforcement maintain a database of everyone's DNA would protect your rights. What exactly would it be protecting? Certainly not your ability to be falsely accused of a crime.

Government databases are currently estimated to be 1/3 crap. Seriously. Even the big commercial database companies have issues with data integrity. What rights would citizens have to assure that any information regarding them in this database is correct?

If your idea of constitutional government is one that ensures optimum law enforcement, why not just chip everyone with GPS chips. That way you could 'prove your innocence' just like with this DNA database.

[mabelkitty]

If it doesn't, it will, and nobody will know.

It's no accident the two are coming together so close in time.

[mabelkitty]

Not hard to figure out.

All those who actively work to dismantle the Ruling Elite (Congress and state politicians) and challenge their power will be criminals.

[kesg]

At least we agree that some government is necessary, even if we disagree about the use of DNA databases.

[Black Agnes]

Agreed.

My rule of thumb with 'databases' and 'fingerprinting' of any sort...if it can be read, it can be copied. If it can be heard, it can be duplicated. Pretty good rule so far. If there isn't a technique to duplicate something just yet, be sure to make that 'something' count as 'identification'. The technique will arise shortly.

[mabelkitty]

That rambling statement has nothing to do with my question.