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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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!
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?
by chipsball4 years ago
Having survived the "Rites of Passage of an African-American Teenager in America" myself as a teenager and having raised four African-Americans teenagers in America I feel so blessed today that none of them...
by Mike Russo15 months ago
In a criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence prevails until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court of law, the defendant is innocent until the...
by leeberttea7 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Source: The HillSince this article is not long I decided to post the whole thing. Man, those SCOTUS justices have a tough job, don't they!Supreme Court finds AT&T isn't a personBy Sara Jerome - 03/01/11 12:44 PM ET...
by Barefootfae4 years ago
http://daily-download.com/chelsea-clint … ournalist/Of course. I have no doubt Chelsea is a wonderful girl.I also have no doubt she is hideously unqualified. When the time comes that won't matter.Just like the...
by Don W4 years ago
In many of the threads in the politics forum, the government seems to be the target for a lot of people's frustration. Why isn't the focus on the corporations that have steadily usurped influence away from ordinary...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.