Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests

Originally posted by hypervigilant
Unless you are the kind of person that is likely to be arrested you really don't need to worry all, that much.... Of course there is always the possibility that a sample of a person's DNA could be planted at a crime scene but that could be used as a defense argument to cause doubt amongst jurors.

In the OP I gave a very real scenario where my DNA could have been taken, even though i was completely innocent.

the "if you arent doing bad, you have nothing to worry about" defense is repugnant.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse?

But you have a choice. What about a job asking for your DNA.

I will not use bank if they want a finger print on a check, Some private bank isn't going to have that. I have no idea what they might do with it in the future.The company offering the average job has no need for a fingerprint.

AS far as planting evidence, it has happened may times in the past. Look at the throw down gun issue, etc/

You do have a choice and if you choose not to b fingerprinted for a job based off of some kind of statement that would be really stupid. How about if a convicted child molester wanted to take a job as a nanny or a job in a nursery school etc.? All tyat is needed is a simple fingerprint to show that this person was convicted of a crime that an emplyer would not want to hire in their school.

DNA is one sample and that sample cannot be replicated, or at least replicated without some serious levels of technology so the chance of planted DNA in that way is not realistic. I dont think any arguments against it are very realistic and the chances of getting caught planting are so high. Sure we can come up with crazy scenarios but planting evidence in that way leaves so much to chance and for what pay off? The person can be on another state or country at the time of the crime or like i said earlier can have a rock solid alibi.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

How is this different than taking finger prints?

As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.

People are fingerprinted for many reasons other than crimes. If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse? If you did you would be in the overwhelming minority.

Big difference between voluntarily giving it (for a job) and to have it taken (because you have been accused of a crime)

reply to post by Malcher

All tyat is needed is a simple fingerprint to show that this person was convicted of a crime that an emplyer would not want to hire in their school.

The point was that the person would not be hired if they didn't give the finger prints. Their choice.

How long before technology make DNA stuff very, very simple.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

How is this different than taking finger prints?

As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.

People are fingerprinted for many reasons other than crimes. If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse? If you did you would be in the overwhelming minority.

Big difference between voluntarily giving it (for a job) and to have it taken (because you have been accused of a crime)

Yes, if you are accused of a crime you did not commit the fingerprint can help exonerate you.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse?

But you have a choice. What about a job asking for your DNA.

I will not use bank if they want a finger print on a check, Some private bank isn't going to have that. I have no idea what they might do with it in the future.The company offering the average job has no need for a fingerprint.

AS far as planting evidence, it has happened may times in the past. Look at the throw down gun issue, etc/

You do have a choice and if you choose not to b fingerprinted for a job based off of some kind of statement that would be really stupid. How about if a convicted child molester wanted to take a job as a nanny or a job in a nursery school etc.? All tyat is needed is a simple fingerprint to show that this person was convicted of a crime that an emplyer would not want to hire in their school.

DNA is one sample and that sample cannot be replicated, or at least replicated without some serious levels of technology so the chance of planted DNA in that way is not realistic. I dont think any arguments against it are very realistic and the chances of getting caught planting are so high. Sure we can come up with crazy scenarios but planting evidence in that way leaves so much to chance and for what pay off? The person can be on another state or country at the time of the crime or like i said earlier can have a rock solid alibi.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

In your opinion its stupid. And your opinion is the reason that employers have such a high level of control over applicants and employees.

Many, many things can be done with DNA. Thats hardly the point, though. It is a privacy issue, through and through.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

How is this different than taking finger prints?

As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.

People are fingerprinted for many reasons other than crimes. If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse? If you did you would be in the overwhelming minority.

Big difference between voluntarily giving it (for a job) and to have it taken (because you have been accused of a crime)

Yes, if you are accused of a crime you did not commit the fingerprint can help exonerate you.

And?

Is being accused of a crime a reason for someone to have their DNA in a database?

DNA is one sample and that sample cannot be replicated, or at least replicated without some serious levels of technology so the chance of planted DNA in that way is not realistic.


Using polymerase chain reaction techniques you can get millions of copies of DNA sequences in about two hours. PCR systems are fairly affordable for an institution and any forensics lab should have one.

This is something that can be abused, although I believe this is a right decision, as it lessens the bureucracy. Getting the order takes time and in many cases the criminals do not agree to co-operate by giving their DNA-sample. One may argue about innocent before guilty, although this does not mean yet the person is guilty or is considered guilty. It can be considered as eliminating suspects. I rememlber in Netherlands over 6,600 males gave a DNA-sample in order to find a murderer from a crime committed in 1999... and the murderer was found.

In many murders/missing people cases it is very hard to get co-operation from murderers, especially on DNA samples. When there is a missing person case, time has crucial value and the requirement of DNA sample saves a lot of time. There was a missing person case in US, where cigarette butts where the only evidence. There was a suspect, although there was no oher evidence pointing at him so a warrant was not granted. He refused to co-operate, so there was nothing the police could do. At the end it still came out, he was the murderer after all + if his DNA-sample was gotten faster, the missing girl´s life could have been saved...

In certain cases time has crucial value and it saves quite a bit of it. After all DNA sample is nothing that much and whether one likes such argument or not, if one has nothing to hide, he gives it voluntarely to save the time of police... That is how it worked in Netherlands. All of the 6600 samples were voluntary.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

All tyat is needed is a simple fingerprint to show that this person was convicted of a crime that an emplyer would not want to hire in their school.

The point was that the person would not be hired if they didn't give the finger prints. Their choice.

How long before technology make DNA stuff very, very simple.

How long? Probably very long if ever. Even still, planting evidence in that way is almost asking to get caught and the pay off is so minuscule that it isnt in the realm of reality if we were to go with what is probable and not what is possible in some out of the norm fantasy scenario.

This is not the same as planting evidence of drugs, guns etc, because you are planting evidence when the person is at the scene, this version is the opposite where the person is not at the scene but you are placing thm there and they can have witnesses, impossibility of being involved due to distance etc. in their favor so it does not meet the reasonable person standard.

The direct application of having knowledge of someone's DNA in planting evidence may be unlikely given most scenarios. But, and this depends on how adequate the sample is of genetic material, the potential to use this for profiling purposes exists as well...and may be more of a threat. For a couple of grand, you can get your genome sequenced....technology a decade from now it could be a hundred bucks (who knows). Especially if agencies are compiling databases. Look at how the FBI introduced that program to finger print children (true it is voluntary) to "aid in identity and recovery"...what if they want to start collecting a cheek swab for the same reasons? You would have a good proportion of U.S. citizens' DNA in a nice database. If there is something to abuse for power or political gain, some ratfink is going to exploit it.

Originally posted by FatherStacks

DNA is one sample and that sample cannot be replicated, or at least replicated without some serious levels of technology so the chance of planted DNA in that way is not realistic.


Using polymerase chain reaction techniques you can get millions of copies of DNA sequences in about two hours. PCR systems are fairly affordable for an institution and any forensics lab should have one.

OK, did not google prior to that statement. How stupid of me.

People also leave multiple copies of their fingerprints around every day. My argument initially and it still is that what is the difference? Unless you want to stop fingerprints and set civilization back a few hundred years then have fun with that.

This is not the same as planting evidence of drugs, guns etc, because you are planting evidence when the person is at the scene, this version is the opposite where the person is not at the scene but you are placing thm there and they can have witnesses, impossibility of being involved due to distance etc. in their favor so it does not meet the reasonable person standard.

The DNA places them there despite what people might claim otherwise. Unless they are very far away, the argument can be made they must have been there at some point.

Originally posted by FatherStacks
The direct application of having knowledge of someone's DNA in planting evidence may be unlikely given most scenarios. But, and this depends on how adequate the sample is of genetic material, the potential to use this for profiling purposes exists as well...and may be more of a threat. For a couple of grand, you can get your genome sequenced....technology a decade from now it could be a hundred bucks (who knows). Especially if agencies are compiling databases. Look at how the FBI introduced that program to finger print children (true it is voluntary) to "aid in identity and recovery"...what if they want to start collecting a cheek swab for the same reasons? You would have a good proportion of U.S. citizens' DNA in a nice database. If there is something to abuse for power or political gain, some ratfink is going to exploit it.

One thing you are forgetting or not accounting for is that you dont need the persons finger to plant their finger print, all you need is a drinking glass or something along those lines so we are right back to the initial argument.

Originally posted by roadgravel

This is not the same as planting evidence of drugs, guns etc, because you are planting evidence when the person is at the scene, this version is the opposite where the person is not at the scene but you are placing thm there and they can have witnesses, impossibility of being involved due to distance etc. in their favor so it does not meet the reasonable person standard.

The DNA places them there despite what people might claim otherwise. Unless they are very far away, the argument can be made they must have been there at some point.

You are misunderstanding my point. Say you are investigating a homicide and you decide to plant evidence. How do you know the person you accused was even able to physically be at the scene when the crime occurred? so now you planted evidence on a person that could not have been at the crime scene, how would you explain this?

Suppose they were in a large department store with multiple witnesses and video cameras? But really is there ven a point to this?

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by FatherStacks
The direct application of having knowledge of someone's DNA in planting evidence may be unlikely given most scenarios. But, and this depends on how adequate the sample is of genetic material, the potential to use this for profiling purposes exists as well...and may be more of a threat. For a couple of grand, you can get your genome sequenced....technology a decade from now it could be a hundred bucks (who knows). Especially if agencies are compiling databases. Look at how the FBI introduced that program to finger print children (true it is voluntary) to "aid in identity and recovery"...what if they want to start collecting a cheek swab for the same reasons? You would have a good proportion of U.S. citizens' DNA in a nice database. If there is something to abuse for power or political gain, some ratfink is going to exploit it.

One thing you are forgetting or not accounting for is that you dont need the persons finger to plant their finger print, all you need is a drinking glass or something along those lines so we are right back to the initial argument.

It's about the amount of information contained within the DNA. You have your racial background, some parts of your medical record, etc. etc. The two aren't in the same sport, let alone the same league.

reply to post by Malcher


The attempts to dilute this topic to a "it can be planted" argument is silly, and irrelevant. Its not about what they can do with dna. Its about what DNA holds.

Why not just have Congress can pass a law that requires EVERY US citizen and visitor to supply DNA and fingerprints.

These Congress people can then also run for re-election.

One last DNA fabrication post...

Found on ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Originally posted by FatherStacks

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by FatherStacks
The direct application of having knowledge of someone's DNA in planting evidence may be unlikely given most scenarios. But, and this depends on how adequate the sample is of genetic material, the potential to use this for profiling purposes exists as well...and may be more of a threat. For a couple of grand, you can get your genome sequenced....technology a decade from now it could be a hundred bucks (who knows). Especially if agencies are compiling databases. Look at how the FBI introduced that program to finger print children (true it is voluntary) to "aid in identity and recovery"...what if they want to start collecting a cheek swab for the same reasons? You would have a good proportion of U.S. citizens' DNA in a nice database. If there is something to abuse for power or political gain, some ratfink is going to exploit it.

One thing you are forgetting or not accounting for is that you dont need the persons finger to plant their finger print, all you need is a drinking glass or something along those lines so we are right back to the initial argument.

It's about the amount of information contained within the DNA. You have your racial background, some parts of your medical record, etc. etc. The two aren't in the same sport, let alone the same league.

That is a straw man argument. It is going to be used to determine who committed a crime, if someone murdered your family are you going to argue against there DNA bering at the scene?