US Supreme Court ruled DNA swab after arrest is OK

1. 89

   IslandBitesposted 10 years ago

   The Supreme Court concluded criminal suspects can be subjected to a police DNA test after arrest -- before trial and conviction...
   Do you agree with the decision?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So long as the sample and record is destroyed if the person is not charged or found not guilty it's fine. That is how it works in most of the world.

      replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   It is an interesting argument that DNA testing is not different from finger-printing in terms of identifying people, and so should also be permitted.  It makes me wonder why/when finger-printing was permitted.

   replyreport
3. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   But that is not what this law allows.  The sample, as with a fingerprint, is used to match arrested people to other crimes already on the record.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm in that case I don't approve, people should not have any ongoing negative repercussions due to being suspected of a crime or being found innocent.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What would be the negative repercussions if there is no other crime OR the person is innocent?  Besides, that is, clearing that person of wrongdoing instead of pinning the crime on him while the real perpetrator goes free?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Clearing him or finding him guilty is obviously important, that is why taking the sample is just fine so long as it is destroyed.
            
            The negative repercussion is simply that someone now no longer has a freedom that they had before, before they could choose not to have their DNA on record, now they do even though they did nothing wrong.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Because of familial testing it could be used to finger members of your family rather than just yourself.
            
            On one hand the innocent have nothing to fear, on the other hand that is the excuse used whenever totalitarian powers are brought in. Even the guilty have some rights to not incriminate themselves or others. And the maybe guilty/maybe not have the right not to be summarily searched for no good reason.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               How is DNA going to incriminate a person any more than their fingerprints, facial features, body build or any other feature unique to them?  At most it is more definite, but that's all.
               
               "Good reason" - isn't that how we do wiretaps and other surveillance?  Because it's for "good reason"?

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  That is why my first comment was: I wonder why fingerprinting upon arrest is allowed? Because the equivalence is pretty high.  The only difference being DNA can incriminate your blood relatives too. 
                  
                  It is a matter of what what point is it a search and seizing property which requires a warrant.  I would have thought taking possession on non-abandoned spit from inside one's mouth would arguably cross that line.

                  replyreport
4. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

   If the DNA is potential evidence of criminal activity, it is no different from other evidence.  If an individual is taken in to custody and needs to be positively identified, reasonably suspected of having committed a crime, I see nothing wrong with it.
   
   When it turns in to a database to keep us safe from potential future crimes, with no suspicion of criminal activity, that is tyranny.  When it becomes mandatory during every traffic stop, airplane boarding etc..., it is too late!

   replyreport
5. 60

   SpanStarposted 10 years ago

   It is the misuse of evidence collected which concerns me. Innocent people have been convicted on evidence collected due to an overzealous attorney, perhaps the planting of evidence by a law enforcement official and let's get serious once they have that information of yours why would they ever want to destroy it? It will remain in the database just in case they needed in the future.
   
   The one thing we do consistently is collect information on people guilty or not. All the information on the Internet catalogued and stored-for what reason-I doubt the majority of people are committing crimes by simply using the Internet. Telephone conversations are being collected by government officials-why? If people aren't engaged in any criminal activity so what reason are they keeping private information?

   replyreport