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

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

[jt8d]

Romney to sign DNA bill today

Measure to cover all felons in state

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

All convicted felons in Massachusetts, from those who commit murder to those who steal live poultry, will be required to submit DNA samples to the State Police under a controversial bill being signed today by Governor Mitt Romney.

The legislation, which will expand the state's DNA database from 20,000 samples to nearly 100,000, has enjoyed bipartisan support on Beacon Hill and has been lauded by law enforcement authorities and the relatives of crime victims. John and Magdalen Bish, whose 16-year-old daughter was abducted from her Warren lifeguard post and murdered in June 2000, will be on hand for the signing ceremony today in Sudbury, home of the State Police crime laboratory, where the forensic data and samples are kept.

But even as Romney tells those gathered today that "the long arm of the law just got a little longer," detractors fear that the new law represents a serious encroachment on privacy rights, mostly because several of the hundreds of felonies on the books are low-level offenses. A felony is any crime for which those convicted can be sent to a state prison...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/12/romney_to_sign_dna_bill_today/

[dirtboy]

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

The problem is called "ex post facto" - this is a retroactive action. Of course, SCOTUS will parse away the problem by saying that this action is not a punishment.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Anything that works in identifying and convicting a criminal, can be abused and used for framing an innocent person. Does that mean we throw techknowledgy in the trash?

We need a law that when one in authority is proven to have used the position and authority to fabricate evidence that convicts an innocent person, he/she is sentenced to the same sentence as the victem recieved,up to and including the death penalty.

[The Red Zone]

We should be more careful with DNA than with fingerprints, because it's easier to forge false DNA evidence than it is to forge fingerprints.

[hunter112]

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.

I understand your cynicism, but I do believe that environmental laws written by Republicans are far more respective of Homo sapiens than are laws written by Rats, and we've seen that difference in numerous states.

Besides, what is the solution to the problem of being able to ultimately identify the likelyhood of each individual's propensity for disease? Would you instead rely on laws prohibiting discrimination in insurance and employment based on genetics? Even if you did, individuals with "clean" genes would always be able to get better rates, simply by voluntarily offering their DNA for a test. Once you have that going, then anyone who won't offer theirs is automatically suspect, and rated accordingly.

[palmer]

Besides, what is the solution to the problem of being able to ultimately identify the likelyhood of each individual's propensity for disease?

The solution is to put "genetic destiny" into its proper perspective. There are genetic probabilities for some diseases ranging from 100% certainty of disease to just the slightest predisposition of a particular disease. Genetic destiny means easy profit and is also an easy excuse for poor diet and exercise habits. Since I'm a fan of holistic medicine, I'm also a fan of holistic genetics which will be invented someday, but is an oxymoron to the gene counters today.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I can't argue with that.

[hunter112]

The solution is to put "genetic destiny" into its proper perspective.

Sounds fine in theory, but we're talking the insurance industry, here. We're talking about a business that practices legal discrimination every single day. If you don't believe me, try paying for auto insurance if you're a younger, unmarried male. You might have just as much driving experience and temperament as a married female of the same age, but she's gonna get a deal, and you'll get the shaft, based solely on demographics. The only thing they haven't figured out how to add into the equation is religion or race.

Malpractice insurance raises, the nursing shortage, and genetic science are on a collision course with the aging baby boomers. If you think its bad now in health care, it will be far worse in ten years if we don't come up with some solutions. If the Republican majority of 2007 cannot come up with some real answers, then they can expect to be unseated by Rats with radical ideas that will take hold in either 2009 or 2013, after the majorities swing their way.

[palmer]

The only thing they haven't figured out how to add into the equation is religion or race.

AFAIK it's illegal. But the risk pooling of insurance doesn't need government regulation if we are willing to subsidize a high risk pool. Everybody else should be able to get a group rate based on their employment, union or professional association.

Adding genetic information would be less effective than adding other personal information such as whether you go to lots of parties. I totally agree that the insurance companies would like to add genetic garbage to their databases, but I maintain that it is not as effective as other personal data and won't be added just as the personal data is not.

[SoulStorms]

you might want to try not doing any of those things, then you wont run the risk of being a felon.

If you are breathing, talking, or thinking, you will aways run that risk. Think about the creeping hate crime legislation that gradually seeks to make thinking the wrong thing a crime.

I don't think I commited any felonies today, but I did snicker when a guy got on the bus with his "man purse". Hate crime? Not yet, but it's coming. Falling back on the old "don't do anything illegal and you won't have anything to worry about" paradigm isn't a solution. If it were, we wouldn't be in a "free country" arguing about it.