Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

www.wired.com

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets

(visit the link for the full news article)

So much for being a constitutional scholar... It is off the cuff statements like this that reveal the true beliefs and intent of the current president and by extension the administration. There is no doubt that some would lick their chops over an ever expanding DNA database at their disposal, with the all too possible situation where "evidence" could be manufactured.

Our Civil Rights are under attack, and any hope of defense by those sworn to protect those rights is long gone.

President Obama backs DNA test in arrests

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15/3/2010 by Mirthful Me]

I support DNA sampling as a requirement to run for public office. I really fail to see what the problem is here. DNA is the new fingerprint. I was fingerprinted when I went into the military, when I got a conceled carry permit, before I took a job with a security clearance and when I got my permit to work as an armed guard. I'm just curious where the funding is going to come from for this? A fingerprint is simple and cheap, DNA costs a bit more.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Maybe they could use the dna to make clones. I always thought that Reagan should have been cloned.

What about a clone of Elvis or Sinatra? The Lakers could clone some of their top players. You could be watching Kobe until the end of time.

reply to post by chorizo4


You go ahead and clone Kobe. I'll clone Wilt Chamberlin, Pete Maravitch, Bill Walton, Dr. J, Mikey Jordan and a few other guys. Kobe would run for his life.

"even absent of conviction".....this scares me tbh. It could lead to a higher percentages of "one night stints" in order to gather dna.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Interesting. I wonder if they will use the material to develop overall crime trends and/or themes? Perhaps after a few years of doing this, they will determine that red heads are far more likely to be driving under the influence with such a statistical probability that they should uniformly pull red heads over when the police see them in the context of public safety?

This is an assault of freedom, period. The simple fact is that there are way too many human elements in the chain of evidence and to retroactively go back is troubling. I understand the issue with people getting away with terrible crimes, but simple forensic evidence several times removed is suspect.

I don't buy the criminal justice technical infrastructure. This federal government can not accurately state what the congressional districts are in the country. Now you are being asked to believe that they can match a couple of DNA markers to a crime potentially committed years ago and a couple of thousand miles away?

Folks ought to read Kafka's "The Trial" to see where this is going.

I recall being stopped at a checkpoint and having my mouth swabbed once for DNA testing, so I thought cops could do this whenever they wanted to anyway. Depending on the circumstances.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Last time I checked, when a person gets arrested they are charged with a crime, that's WHY they are arrested.

My take on all this, don't do aything wrong to where you WOULD get arrested, and you wont have any thing to worry about.

I don't know about other metro. areas, but the people to police ratio is so high in Phoenix, they're stretched thin to the point where you won't have to worry about them going out of their way to get you if you've done nothing wrong. So, if you do get arrested there, it's for a good reason. You deserve it.



Peace

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
Last time I checked, when a person gets arrested they are charged with a crime, that's WHY they are arrested.

Yes, they are CHARGED. That doesn't mean that they're guilty of ANYTHING. They can and are many times completely innocent.

My take on all this, don't do aything wrong to where you WOULD get arrested, and you wont have any thing to worry about.

Read above.

So, if you do get arrested there, it's for a good reason. You deserve it.

This attitude is SAD, man!

This is outrageous! I hope you all have written your reps and the White House about this.

Think about it we are waking up and if they try this all bets are off for them. Until something happens it is pie in the sky and this one will never happen. Just like they will not take our guns or do a way with the constitution all of these things would kick it off in a very real way. And they know we must lose alot more before they can truly make any move on us. But day after day the economy sinks deeper it is only a matter of time.

reply to post by JIMC5499


I support a psychological exam and a lie detector for all politicians about to enter office. Sure you can beat it, but the odds are against that!

On Topic:

For me to get behind this they would have to specify the type of crime that would make this mandatory. I mean for violent offenders this would be great! I don't know if they should do this for things like trespassing or DUIs though. There has to be a limit somewhere.

If there is no set of rules for this that is dependent on the nature of the crime committed then I say no way Jose!

Sadly this is not a surprise to me, and as much as I detest the concept I also realize that we don't really run this country anymore, we haven't for a long long time. Time and time again the government has show complete disregard for the will of the people and I don't think its going to change anytime soon. As for being a constitutional scholar that doesn't mean he studied the actual Document itself but more than likely the clever ways that all three branches have routinely sidestepped the limitations that were supposed to keep them from ballooning in size and power beyond what was intended by the founders.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey BH -Most of the time we agree. Sometimes we don't.

I understand the pessimism that our government is a sinister entity that has the potential to misuse collected data, but I think with the proper restrictions DNA samples of arrested suspects will...actually has...saved lives.

How many murderers, child abducters and other forms of living horrors have walked out of police stations free to return to thier crimes because of insufficient evidence absent a volountary DNA sample?

How do you think the people that were wrongfully sitting on death row, and then released due to DNA evidence, feel about it? How many other people are still sitting on death row waiting for a some civil rights lawyer to take notice and spend the time and effort to dig into the file and run the DNA?

DNA evidence has saved lives...
DNA evidence quickly allows investigators to exclude suspects and narrow the search in time critical crimes...child abduction for example.

Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
[Print Version]


There have been 251 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 185 exonerations.

• 17 of the 252 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,170.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 251 exonerees:

151 African Americans
72 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 107 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• 22 percent of cases closed by the Innocence Project since 2004 were closed because of lost or missing evidence.

• 18 DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit, serving more than 100 years in prison before they were exonerated.

www.innocenceproject.org...

I don't think anbody is talking about DNA samples when you get pulled over for speeding, but in cases of Murder, Child abduction, Rape and the like I would want my law enforcement to have the ability to exclude suspects quickly and have the tools to find the perpatrator.

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by DaMod


I don't care what the crime is. It is unlawful search and seizure and will be overturned if it is enacted. This asserts that the police have a reason to believe that you may be guilty. If they have no reason to suspect that you are guilty, by what right do they have to swab your mouth? Because you are pulled over in Omaha for a DUI they are swabbing you because there is an unsolved murder case in Maine?

The police should be required to have a search warrant to obtain your DNA and to obtain that warrant they should be required to convience a judge that they have probable cause of guilt.

Crime is a complex matter. It is tied to local economys, political aspirations, school ratings, government funding and a host of other things. To make the assumption that you are guilty, which clearly is the ramification of the swab is a direct violation of your rights. If you don't think that this kind of thing would be abused to show that some politician is "tough on crime", you're crazy.

When will folks wake up? Warrantless searches of your cell phone calls, mandatory implementation of a black box in all new vehicles, warrantless wire taps, pressuring ISPs and telcos to maintain search and phone records for the purposes of government scrutiny, personal questions included on the census which have no purpose in "counting" people, potentially using the IRS to enforce the purchase of health care, national biometric id cards, mandatory vaccines. It goes on.

An expansive government by definition requires a reduction in freedom. It can be no other way, it is a binary problem and government and freedom are by definition mutually exclusive

This has been going on in the UK for a while now. Anyone arrested, for whatever reason, has a DNA sample taken. This goes onto a national database and STAYS THERE FOREVER... and here's the kicker... It stays there forever WHETHER you are charged or not, and found innocent of all charges or not.

I guess the UK trial has been a success and now it gets rolled out in a few more countries

I bet somewhere (probably Switzerland) there's a bunch of people sitting around a conference table discussing how the plans for turning the population of the world into branded cattle are going. One by one they all give their current status and future plans.... I guess the North American representative will be saying 'Following the successful and hassle-free trial in the UK, we are now ready to start the USA's DNA database. At the head of the table someone stroking a white cat will reply 'Very good Number One!'

Do you people understand the difference between being arrested and being CONVICTED???

If you are a criminal -- which, last I checked, meant you were found guilty of a crime by either a judge or a jury of your peers -- then your DNA should be kept on file for future reference. Why? Because you have already proven you are a criminal.

However, simply getting arrested means the cops THINK you committed a crime. They won't know if they were right until due process happens and you are found guilty OR non-guilty.

Two totally different things entirely.

Further, non-guilty means that a judge or jury feels that there is not enough evidence to PROVE you committed said crime. And guess what? You leave court as a FREE PERSON, not a criminal.

I just am flabbergasted at the number of people that so willingly give away our rights without even flinching. It's darn right scary.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically mentions a right to privacy. If you say the 9th Amendment, eh, you're grasping at straws.

It's a rare occasion when I side with Obama, and this is one of those times. I'm all for DNA sampling upon incarceration. I don't think you should have to be charged or arrested. DNA is far better than a fingerprint and has released so many wrongfully imprisoned men here in the Dallas area. Nationwide this has the potential to correct hundreds if not thousands of wrongfully imprisoned people.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I understand the pessimism that our government is a sinister entity that has the potential to misuse collected data, but I think with the proper restrictions DNA samples of arrested suspects will...actually has...saved lives.

Yes, I know. And you probably also know that I am not one who thinks the government is a sinister entity out to get us all. My opinion is based on the fact that I believe DNA collection of an innocent individual is unlawful search and seizure as protected by the 4th amendment:

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

I believe DNA collection of innocent people should require a warrant.

How many murderers, child abducters and other forms of living horrors have walked out of police stations free to return to thier crimes because of insufficient evidence absent a volountary DNA sample?

The fact that our legal system isn't perfect and "sometimes the bad guy gets away" is not a good enough reason (to me) to blatantly violate the 4th amendment.

Yes, 251 innocent people have been exonerated. That's great. But I don't want to live in a country where seizing OTHER innocent people on the street and forcibly taking their DNA is allowed.

I realize that it would be good for some people, but I draw the line at the constitution. Respectfully, your argument is like saying, "Since innocent people get killed in accidental shootings and suicide, we are justified in taking away the guns of Americans." In my mind, one does not justify the other.

I don't think anbody is talking about DNA samples when you get pulled over for speeding,

In California, which has this law, it used to be that only CONVICTED criminals were collected. Then it was changed to anyone ARRESTED for a felony. I can easily see this DNA collection moving to anyone arrested, "for the sake of the children and innocents on death row".

I just can't condone what amounts to a violation of the Constitution. I'd like to hear what Jonathon Turley has to say about this.

Our justice system has some serious holes and problems, but blanketing the law abiding citizens with invasion into their persons to plug those holes is a big no-no to me.

Originally posted by sos37
It's a rare occasion when I side with Obama, and this is one of those times. I'm all for DNA sampling upon incarceration.

He's talking about taking DNA from people who are ARRESTED, not people who are incarcerated.


[edit on 3/15/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]