Posted on 04/16/2003 6:35:26 AM PDT by michaelje
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Due process of law means merely that -- the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty, or property except in accordance with the law. Different Constitutional provisions address which types of laws can be enacted, and which types of laws cannot be enacted.
To put this entire issue in perspective, contrast the potential abuses of DNA databases (if any) with a real life example of gross abuses of our freedom: the pervasive (and pernicious) use of progressive taxation to redistribute wealth in this country from those who earn it to those who don't -- "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," not in a Communist country, but right here in the USA. From my perspective, obsessing about potential abuses of DNA databases doesn't even rise to the level of focusing on the gnat on the elephant's butt.
No offense taken, but "I disagree" would have taken many fewer words to write and would have been much closer to the actual truth.
No offence in any case. (but I stand by my advice.)
DNA evidence can be useful to both sides in a criminal case -- either to convict a guilty person or acquit an innocent person. In this respect, DNA evidence is no different from any other form of evidence. Both sides are free to argue over how much weight, if any, the jury should give to the evidence in deciding guilt or innocence.
But let's take your specific question. You would prove such a thing through the usual methods -- testimony, documents, exhibits, and the like. In order to convict, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, after considering all of the evidence introduced by both sides on the question, that the DNA evidence was not planted.
Whatever happened to simply being able to opt out?
I mentioned the opt out option as a means of avoiding any potential Fourth Amendment problems, alhtough I don't think that the Fourth Amendment is, in fact, a problem, i.e. I was speaking hypothetically, not categorically.
Huh? Probably older than you, but what difference does it make?
I'm starting to lose track of who said what in opposition to what I have been saying, but aren't you the person who at least agreed that the choice here isn't between anarchy and a police state? We are talking about submitting a DNA sample to a database so that the government can do a better job of law enforcement, i.e. of protecting your rights and your freedom. Your arguments are not so much against DNA samples in particular, but government in general.
The only reason we need government is to secure the individual rights of its citizens. The Founding Fathers understood as much -- see the Declaration of Independence. If I thought that DNA databases ran counter to this basic fundamental principle, I would not be here arguing for them.
I do agree with the middle sentence, but would add that we need government (including law enforcement) in order to secure the rights that we already have as human beings.
Submitting? Like voluntarily? Cool, go for it, but leave me out.
The issue is the TAKING of it, not the database itself.
I find it amazing that anyone would have to have explained to them the pitfalls of bureaucrats having all of our personal information at their fingertips.
Why don't we just install cameras in your house. Hey it may help catch criminals and "secure our individual rights from those who would deprive us of these rights, including criminals" as you put it. Why not send a daily log as to our comings and goings to the government every day. It may help catch a criminals after all. You'll probably feel even more secure.
I almost regret putting these ideas out there. I get the impression you might come back with "tell me how cameras installed in our houses deprives us of freedom" or "filling out a log may help secure my freedoms".
It's very simple. My medical records, DNA, bank account, credit card purchases or any other personal info are my effects and none of anyone elses f***ing business, including some uneducated bureaucrat's.
Let me spell it out for you, since you can't seem to figure these things out for yourself:
Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"We might need this information some day" is unreasonable and doesn't warrant probable cause for them to seize anything that's mine if I choose not to give it to them.
Forget the constitution, you have a basic human right to not have strangers rifling through your personal and private life.
You're making an extremely dumb argument. If you want to give the morons your most private information, knock yourself out. While you're at it, give them access to all of your finances, medical records, computer and anything else they and have everyone in your family do the same thing.
Then, when I get a government job as some database geek and decide I want to get even with internet posters who ask dumb questions, I'll find out where you're vulnerable and take appropriate action.
Also, no one has convinced me either that the Fourth Amendment applies to this problem at all or, if it does, that a DNA requirement is unreasonable. To me, giving a DNA sample (or a fingerprint) is no different from filling out a government form, such as a tax return. In fact, the government form tells the government much more about me than what they can learn from a DNA sample. Yet no serious person argues that filling out a government form somehow implicates the Fourth Amendment.
I am right behind you - but we better start - yesterday???
Yes, so they are changing the law to make this obscenity part of due process. That is the problem. There is this pesky little thing called rights that the constitution is supposed to protect. It gets in the way of the government aims - so we pass a law and 'voila!' ignoring that pesky little thing is now part of 'due process'.
Yes, our tax situation is beyond terrible. While I want them to leave my money alone, this is getting into the my life and my body area - that can't be replaced -
As a simple example, suppose that after the police have a suspect, they receive a report from a witness that the last three digits of the criminal's license plate were 572. If the witness had no prior knowledge of the suspect, and if the suspect's car happens to have a license ending in 572, the license plate provides substantial corroborating evidence against the witness.
Suppose, however, that all the cops had was the last three digits of the license plate number, and no suspect. If the cops start by calling up all plates ending in 572, however, the fact that they find some proves nothing. After all, they're bound to find such a plate (probably lots of them). Even if someone with such a plate looks like a plausible suspect, the fact that the plate was used to choose the suspect negates much of its evidentiary value.
Setting up DNA databases will make DNA less, rather than more, substantive as proof. Of course, juries will be kept blind to that.
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.