Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests

Originally posted by Malcher

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.

Christ, i didn't pull that off of google. Some people have backgrounds in molecular biology and I'm trying my best to discuss this at a level that is accessible. If an entity obtains your DNA, without your consent or knowledge, sequences it and finds you have something like Huntington's Disease or some other terminal illness, would you want to know? Some people don't. There is powerful info in DNA, obviously, and the question becomes who do you trust to have that info? Asking what is the difference between DNA and fingerprints is a question, from my perspective, that just doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by FatherStacks


In the future DNA may well determine whether or not a person can buy insurance.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by FatherStacks

 

In the future DNA may well determine whether or not a person can buy insurance.

It could determine any number of things. Personalized medicine sounds cool and like a great idea, and in some respects it is...but the same question remains...who do you trust to have such information? Physician..probably..insurance company...probably not....pharmaceutical company....er...

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by FatherStacks

Originally posted by Malcher

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.

Christ, i didn't pull that off of google. Some people have backgrounds in molecular biology and I'm trying my best to discuss this at a level that is accessible. If an entity obtains your DNA, without your consent or knowledge, sequences it and finds you have something like Huntington's Disease or some other terminal illness, would you want to know? Some people don't. There is powerful info in DNA, obviously, and the question becomes who do you trust to have that info?

I think theses are all straw man arguments.

Not taking the bait..sorry.

Consider it a given that your DNA will be collected. It can't be prevented.

It far simpler than taking your fingerprints, about the same as taking your photograph except your DNA will linger after you have vacated the area, glass, apartment, gas pump, etc. The collection, covertly or overtly of your DNA cannot be prevent by any means so that means it will be allowed, as a given "right" of TPTB (for your own protection, of course).

I personally think fingerprints and DNA should be taken on all new born babies born and stored forever. Think of the number of honicides and crimes that could be solved if there was a national data bank around the world for such a thing.
It could solve many crimes that were previously unsolved but obviousely more would have to be taken into account but it could help in many ways in my opinion.
How many crimes are made and the person is not in any data base at all. This would have ro be taken worldwide which would more than likely some countries would object but it would help immensely in my opinion.
Thoughts anyone ?

reply to post by scotsdavy1


Meanwhile they do DNA tests (babies daddy tests) on cheesy talk shows here all the time and no one has an issue with this. Now why is that every time something comes up that is actually for the beneficial it is like pulling teeth with a pair of pliers?

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by scotsdavy1

 

Meanwhile they do DNA tests (babies daddy tests) on cheesy talk shows here all the time and no one has an issue with this. Now why is that every time something comes up that is actually for the beneficial it is like pulling teeth with a pair of pliers?

edit on 4-6-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

Those people voluntarily agree to giving their DNA for their own purpose. The difference is choice or forced.

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by scotsdavy1

 

Meanwhile they do DNA tests (babies daddy tests) on cheesy talk shows here all the time and no one has an issue with this. Now why is that every time something comes up that is actually for the beneficial it is like pulling teeth with a pair of pliers?

edit on 4-6-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

Those people voluntarily agree to giving their DNA for their own purpose. The difference is choice or forced.

On a talk show it is voluntary, but it is also forced to determine if a male is a babies father. The reason it is used is because it is accurate.

It may turn out that the male is not the babies father and i never heard of this being an issue.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by scotsdavy1

 

Meanwhile they do DNA tests (babies daddy tests) on cheesy talk shows here all the time and no one has an issue with this. Now why is that every time something comes up that is actually for the beneficial it is like pulling teeth with a pair of pliers?

edit on 4-6-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

Those people voluntarily agree to giving their DNA for their own purpose. The difference is choice or forced.

On a talk show it is voluntary, but it is also forced to determine if a male is a babies father. The reason it is used is because it is accurate.

It may turn out that the male is not the babies father and i never heard of this being an issue.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Malcher because: Editing out a comment.

Court order. Its that simple.

In the instance that is the topic of the thread, there is no warrant, and no conviction. In the case youa re trying to use as an example, there is a COURT ORDER.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

From what I understand this will only be done with violent offenders that already have a record.... If you were aware of how many people that have gotten life in prison or a death sentence in Texas that have since been cleared because of DNA evidence... Awhile back there was an arrest for a murder based only on fingerprint evidence that was over fifty years old. I don't like the idea of every living person being forced to g

All three branches of government have been perverted, and are enemies of the populace.

Wake up folks.