Romney Signs DNA Bill-ALL PERSONS Having ANY Felony Convictions Must Submit Sample to State

The Boston Globe - Raphael Lewis ^ | November 12, 2003 | JT8D

[dsc]

The solution seems obvious: make it a felony to be elected to public office.

[Old Professer]

Grief counseling is on the fourth floor.

Express elevator reserved for paying customers.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Let me just say I would only agree to this if it was part of the sentence, which at first I thought it was. Forcing someone to give DNA after the fact, in this case a convict who has served his time and been released is unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned.

[neverdem]

"This may be over the top, but I do not trust the govt with this power."

How did you read my mind? Many DAs are elected and feel compelled to get convictions any way they can. How many folks trust politicians?

The top cop in Great Britain said he wants samples of DNA from the whole population of her majesty's subjects.

[neverdem]

Ping

[Conservative til I die]

I really don't have a problem with this at all. We are talking about CONVICTED felons here.

I'm guessing you're the same person that says "Why shouldn't you submit to the DNA test? If you're not guilty you have nothing to fear!"

[Conservative til I die]

You see, it's like this, you commit a crime, you lose your civil rights. OK?, next topic please.

Really? I was unaware that convicted criminals (or are you including accused criminals too?) lose their rights to practice their religion, practice free speech or free association, and several other civil rights.

If you think it stops at just criminals, you're pretty naive.

[jt8d]

"You see, it's like this, you commit a crime, you lose your civil rights. OK?, next topic please."

Anything may be defined as a crime. In 1938 Germany, it was a crime to be Jewish--eventually punishable by death.

In Connecticut, it is a crime to carry a pocket knife in your vehicle--or any other type of "weapon." The problem is that anything may be defined as a "weapon"--the only distinguishing characterisic is WHO writes the definition. The day will come when some elitist may define your humble existance into being a criminal act--a felony--and some thoughtful individual will say: "You see, it's like this, you commit a crime, you lose your civil rights. OK?, next topic please."

This is not about "solving" crimes. This is about de-sensitizing the population into accepting a Police State:

Today, the State will take DNA "only" from "felons," and, of course, the sheeple will all say "Hey, great idea--after all THEY are criminals." The fact that most of these people have long since paid their debt, and are probably now living productive responsible lives, causes not even a slight twinge of conscience. Sure, today we are told: "Oh, its only for those who are incarcerrated, on parole, or on probation." Intent means little. What matters is capability--the capacity to do harm. The State giveth--and the State taketh away.

Tomorrow, Big Brother will decree that "for reason of crime prevention" your children will all need to have their DNA sampled" in order to attend public school.

Then the gun owners will be required to provide DNA in order to secure an License To Carry.

And so on... Each day, government takes a little nibble--an infringment--upon your rights. Oh, it is just a minor violation of that "living" document--the Constitution. Things have changed... we have to adapt, etc..

This is how they went after the smokers. This is how they went after the gun owners and manufacturers. This is how they are targeting the fast food industry. But nobody seems to be paying attention to the method of choice: infringment.

[gnarledmaw]

Im not sure whether I should focus on "convicted", like those convicted on bogus dna like the FBI uses, or "felony", like minor paperwork errors and farting in public.

[gnarledmaw]

"Makes a lot of sense..."

Yah, it would be much worse to lay unknown in some swamp than to have your DNA spliced into a tomato, a cow soldier, or anything along those lines.

[teeman8r]

i would argue that fingerprints taken to be compared to crime scene evidence would violate the fifth amendment of self incrimination... court orders for dna samples and fingerprints with judges approval and no records kept after exoneration to be permitted, but fishing expeditions are arguably tools of tyrants.

[hunter112]

The protections against self-incrimination apply to written or verbal self-incrimination. They arise from the use of torture to compel individuals to falsely testify against themselves. Physical evidence, whether in the form of fingerprints, DNA, or any other scientific method, cannot be altered by torture, or threats.

I have been somewhat persuaded by an argument made earlier in the thread that DNA evidence has potential other uses besides criminal identification. Only the very strongest of safeguards should be followed in the use of DNA records.

I fear the battle will be lost in the long run on DNA, it is impossible to put a genie back in its bottle, when technology comes up with a way of finding new knowledge. It may lead to universal health care as a means of keeping insurance companies and employers from discriminating against people based on what their genetic profiles show "might" happen to them. I just hope that the eventual system is decided by a 70% Republican Congress, with a Republican President.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"This is a very bad development."

Yes,very bad for convicted felons. Next crime they dare not drop a hair or a bead of sweat.

Many of us have had our finger prints on file for decades and decades and it has created no problem at all for we who commit no crimes. I can't see how DNA samples of convicted felons on file, is anything to concern non-felons either.

[TLI]

I'm no fan of big Police, but you might want to try not doing any of those things, then you wont run the risk of being a felon.

How about growing wheat? Or having an impostor testify against you? Or accused of being a child molester?

All occur regularly and there is no protection. No one "did" anything wrong and now they are in jail.

You seem to advocate no recourse for an innocent person. Are you prejudges against people that state their opinions and stand up for their rights? A lot of racial minorities do exactly that. Are YOU prejudges against racial minorties? That is a HATE CRIME.

See how easy that was? Now you are in prison. A CONVICTED FELON.

TLI

[agitator]

Coming soon to a Department of Motor Vehicles Near You!

[TLI]

I have been somewhat persuaded by an argument made earlier in the thread that DNA evidence has potential other uses besides criminal identification.

Yes it does. Germany had a few ideas regarding genetic information databases.

TLI

[The Red Zone]

and it has created no problem at all for we who commit no crimes

Guess you hadn't heard about fingerprint evidence forgeries. DNA forgeries will also be possible by anyone who roots through your trash for something your saliva has gotten onto, or for that matter who fishes in your sewer line.

[palmer]

I just hope that the eventual system is decided by a 70% Republican Congress, with a Republican President.

Universal health care from the Stupid party might seem better than the same from the Evil party but they will end up being the same.

[Born Conservative]

You forgot the /sarcasm off (at least I HOPE you forgot it).