It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA in private hands

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Implied consent should be overturned on 5th amendment grounds as the constitution should trump state law. If an individual can not be penalized on the basis of his refusal to speak against himself, certainly the government should not be able to penalize an individual for not allowing fluids to be extracted from his body.

A bank robber that received a bullet wound from an officer in his leg in the course of a robbery can not be required to under go surgery to extract the bullet which would prove his guilt. The same principle should apply in alcohol or other substance testing. I know it doesn't, but it should. As a juror I would vote innocent everytime based on my judgement of the law.
.




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be SECURE IN THEIR PERSON, 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 particulary describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be SEIZED.

**Wouldn't this in effect cover the states request for a breath sample under a reasonable cause DUI traffic stop?


df1

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mako0956
The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be SECURE IN THEIR PERSON, 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 particulary describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be SEIZED.

**Wouldn't this in effect cover the states request for a breath sample under a reasonable cause DUI traffic stop?


If I am on the jury I will agree that the 4th allows you to search car, home and even strip the accused buck nekkid for evidence with an appropriate warrant, however I do not believe a warrant covers any part of the persons biology that is still part of body. Not breath, hair, saliva, urine, excrement, blood, dna or the like. I would see this as testifying against yourself and the individual should have the right to refuse with no penalty. A defendent can choose to allow any of these things to prove his innocence, just as he can take the witness stand.
.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
As long as the Officer is making a Reasonable/Probable cause traffic stop.

The issue is: UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

To ask a drunk to submit to a breathilizer test is REASONABLE.

Within the scope of the "Implied Consent Law" the subject is allowed to ask for another test by "qualified personnel" of their choice. The arresting Officer is obligated, to have the subject take the subsequent test.

Random sampling of DNA, I disagree with.

DNA sampling for a criminal investigation, I agree with. The sample will either convict or clear the alleged suspect.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Amendment lX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

This Amendment was born out of fear the Americans had a tyrannical government. The writers of the Bill of Rights feared that if the rights weren't spelled out in the Constitution, the Federal government would assume jurisdiction.


Amendment X:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States repectively, or to the public".


The debate over who should have more power the States or the Federal government was what the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was about and continues even today.

This Amendment was written to guarantee that the Federal government could not usurp power from the States by claiming powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.

**Apparently, the Constitution leaves it to the States to make the laws about driving regulations and penalties, including DUI.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
A person is found guilty of ONE crime, ANY crime, and for the rest of that person's life they are to be considered a suspect for ANY OTHER crime that may happen?

I'm sorry Mako, I just can't agree with that.

If a person has been required to submit DNA because they are suspected of commiting a crime, other evidence has already been accumulated that indicates THIS person is likely responsible.

To keep that DNA on file and compare it to that of another crime without any other evidence is not only against the constitutional rights of a US citizen, but it's just plain WRONG.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Again, DNA samples from CONVICTED violent felons and sexual predators. I did not say SUSPECTED.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
And I said......


Originally posted by Montana
A person is found guilty of ONE crime, ANY crime, and for the rest of that person's life they are to be considered a suspect for ANY OTHER crime that may happen?

I'm sorry Mako, I just can't agree with that.


In saying ANY crime I was trying to say that in my mind it didn't matter if it was felony, misdemeanor, or whatever.

Sorry, guess I wasn't being as clear as I would have liked to be. This seems to happen alot to me!


[edit on 7/17/2004 by Montana]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   
But, you see it does matter.

Someone who masturbates on or forces small children to perform oral sex on him and then threatens to harm them if they tell vs someone who was caught with some petty non-violent charge, as in some minor traffic violation.

Big difference.

If a person is convicted of some sexual crime against children, they should have their DNA in a National database. The stats on these types of crimes are the subject has a backround in this preference and usually has a list of approx. 60 victims before they are actually caught.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
That is a sick, disgusting act. Makes me want to puke!


Put them away for life, make them leave the country, heck- make it a capital offense and kill them, I'll support any of that! But if you send a person to prison and then let them out again, they have in effect paid the price society has placed on that crime.

Once a person has done that you no longer have the right to acuse them for any other crime without proof of some kind. I'm sorry, that's just the way this country is set up.

Holding someones DNA and automatically comparing it to DNA from a crime with no evidence to suspect them of that crime is unlawful. There's no way around it.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mako0956
Again, DNA samples from CONVICTED violent felons and sexual predators. I did not say SUSPECTED.


But you did imply that you agreed with testing of CONVICTED felons - as you stated in a previous post, at least 4 states require DNA testing of convicted felons. First, I agree that all CONVICTED sex offenders and violent criminals (i.e. rape, murder, attempted murder, etc.) should be tested - we know they most likely will not be in jail for life and more often than not, they re-offend.

However, the probelm I have with this is the idea of testing all CONVICTED FELONS. There are many felonies that are not violent. For example,

Spam can be considered a felony in Virginia under certain circumstances.

"Sending unsolicited bulk e-mails by fraudulent means is a misdemeanor in Virginia, but the violations become felonies if:

The volume of spam transmitted exceeds 10,000 in any 24-hour period, 100,000 in any 30-day period or 1 million in any one-year period.

Revenue generated from specific spam ads exceeds $1,000 or total revenue from all spam transmitted to any Internet service provider exceeds $50,000.

The defendant knowingly uses a minor to assist in the transmission of spam. "

Also the following crimes can be felony crimes:

DUI
DWI
Mail Fraud
Evading Child Support
Writing a bad check
Bribery
Conspiracy
Credit Fraud
False Swearing
Mayhem

This is just to name a few. See a fairly comrehensive list here

So to say that it is ok and even good to collect DNA samples from every convicted felon is a stretch for me. Violent criminals, maybe, but all felons - no way. If I write a bad check that should not give the government the go ahead to collect my bodily fluids or invade my person in any way.



Authorities said Jeremy Jaynes was arrested in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lisa Hicks-Thomas, director of Virgin



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
For some assinine reason you have selectively "browsed" over my post skipping over my words, to make what you consider a righteous argument.

Perhaps if you reread what you went out of your way to quot me, you will see I clearly stated "CONVICTED VIOLENT FELONS AND SEXUAL PREDATORS" and not what you chose to read "CONVICTED FELONS AND SEXUAL PREDATORS".

I didn't add the word VIOLENT, it has been there since I began posting on this thread.


badkitty, get with the program.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana

That is a sick, disgusting act. Makes me want to puke!




*Why do you act so surprised? For many children this is their daily reality. (You think because you are shielded from the "nasty details" this means it doesn't exist or isn't as wide spread as it is?)

How about some two year old who needs repeated surgeries to reconstruct her vagina because some man thought it was ok to vaginally penetrate and have intercourse with her? Do you think after this man does his three years in prison she will be ok or do you think she will continue to be physically traumatized by this, even into adulthood?

Do you think it unfair to keep this mans DNA, the DNA he was so free to give away, on record, in the event something like this occurs in his neighborhood in four years time?

What if this was your two year old?



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mako0956
www.wsba.org...

According to this article dated December 2002:


The majority of DNA sampling statutes apply to only certain sex offenders, or to all violent offenders. At least four states already require samples from anyone convicted of a felony.

All fifty states have enacted laws requiring certain classes of convicted offenders to provide DNA samples to be placed in DNA databases.



Mako, first, no need to be rude. This is a discussion, not a playground taunting session so please, play nice. That said....

I was merely poiting out that per your post - "At least four states already require samples from anyone convicted of a felony.

All fifty states have enacted laws requiring certain classes of convicted offenders to provide DNA samples to be placed in DNA databases. ".

This is where I have a problem.

If I was unclear in the fact that I AGREE WITH YOU in that those conviced of sexual and violent crimes should be tested - my error.

However, I still contend that we must be very careful with how much libery we are allowing the government to take. The idea that any "convicted felon" can be tested is beyond acceptable.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by badkitty]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by badkitty]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by badkitty]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I was only quoting an article to which I posted a link to.

You were posting that as my posture on the issue.

On with the discussion...............

I see no point in collecting DNA samples from someone who wrote a bad check. That is just stupid, time consuming and a monetary waste. Not to mention the operator time involved in processing the sample and recording the results in the system.

In addition, "taking up space" in the system and causing results to be delayed, as it has to compare against non-relative samples. (Non-relative as in bad check vs child molestation).

This article also stated the system is behind like 6 years. So if the convicted violent offender's DNA is taken today, it wouldn't be available in the system for at least another 6 years before it is available for comparison testing.

This would indicate the tests would have to be retested in 6 years.

I agree that we need to be conservative on what we allow the government to control. However, in the cases of convicted, violent felons and sexual predators, the offenders likely to cause harm on society at some point in the future, I believe they should be held accountable.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mako0956

*Why do you act so surprised? For many children this is their daily reality. (You think because you are shielded from the "nasty details" this means it doesn't exist or isn't as wide spread as it is?) ........

Do you think it unfair to keep this mans DNA, the DNA he was so free to give away, on record, in the event something like this occurs in his neighborhood in four years time?



First, I was not expressing surprise. I was expressing revulsion. I don't see how you got 'surprised' from my post.

Second, do not assume that a person who does not agree with you has to be uneducated or uncaring or just plain dumb. Read what they have to say and agree or don't agree as you see fit.

Third, I made no personal attack against you, I do not appreciate you attacking me.

Fourth, my wife and I have five children, three of whom are girls. You can safely assume I have thought about the ramifications of my views.

NOW, all that said, yes I still think it is wrong to arbitrarilly test someone's DNA UNLESS there is other evidence leading to the belief that the person is responsible.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Personally, I don't care what your opinion is, nor do I care what your opinion is on my opinion.

The fact is: they ARE collecting DNA samples from felons, some violent, some not.

I believe it's a good thing from convicted violent offenders and sexual predators, you do not.

Attacking you? No. Trying to get you to see the light? Yes.

Obviously you're mind is made up on this issue, so I will make no attempt to try and convince you otherwise.

According to your location, it says Montanna, so I am assuming you are located there.

In rating the stats per captia for your state, according to this 2002 article/research*, you have a lower crime rate per captia than lets say Georgia or Florida. In other words, you have a less likely chance of becoming a victim of violent crime than someone in another state who rated higher on this scale.

Your state rated the 29th position out of 51 states for violent crime.

How could I possibly expect you to acknowledge the increasing violent crime rates of New York City, Chicago, Atlanta or Miami when your state's crime rate is no where near as high?

*www.albany.edu...



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I DO leave the state on occasion.....



But you're right, we're not getting anywhere just wasting board space.

See ya around.


[edit on 7/19/2004 by Montana]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join