DNA in private hands, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-7-2004 @ 10:16 PM by badkitty
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


reply posted on 17-7-2004 @ 11:20 PM by badkitty
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]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Finally! MSM Coverage - Legal Challenges to Fed - The End is Near
  Posted 19 days ago with 48 member flags
‘Barcode everyone at birth’
  Posted 5 days ago with 20 member flags
Pentagon Source Alludes to Martial Law Around July 1st, 2012
  Posted 3 days ago with 19 member flags
FBI Seize Email server, then return it
  Posted 16 days ago with 16 member flags
Bilderberg Scheme To Save The Euro
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags