Slashdot Mirror
California Initiative to Expand DNA Database
vervais_sucks writes "A California attorney is personally bankrolling, to the sum of $1.3m, an initiative to require law enforcement to take DNA samples of every person they arrest for a felony." The (lengthy) initiative is available here (search for DNA on the page).
They get your DNA just for a felony? Sure, some felonies are really bad but does that give them the right to take our DNA? SUre, child molestors, phycho killers, mass murderers, and rapists deserve it but not all felons are bad people. I know 2 felons who came from a bad backround and they are now some of the nicest people I know. DNA is not something to play with.
sounds like a movie plot, where a lawyer bankrolling the whole thing had been sleeping with his sister-in-law, murdered them both - and then goes on a public campaign to sidetrack everyone from including him as a suspect. Just the cynic in me.
meh
What about people wrongly convicted?
RTFA.
He who is merely arrested forfeits personal biometric identification (DNA) which is not at all like fingerprints, but carries very personal and private data about his genetic makeup, health, probability of disease and much else.
Remember, being arrested has nothing to do with being guilty. This means that if a couple little girls like the ones up in Seattle skip school and then make up a story about being raped by you or some other stranger that had never even seen the girls before and you're arrested because of it (or in that poor homeless guy's case, PUT IN PRISON), they will confiscate your DNA for evidence for eternity - even if the girls later confess that they invented the whole story to get away with skipping school (as those two little twats in Seattle did this past winter).
It isn't even so much the DNA itself as it is the shifting of our legal system from a "presumed innocent until proven guilty" to a "guilty until proven innocent, and even then you're still fucked" system.
I think they fingerprint you when they arrest you and put that info in some database. Is this really that different from DNA sampling?
Wrongly arrested have legal recourse. Perhaps they can get it removed, but how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?
Now if they could just do this nationally, and allow nationwide searches of the data, then at least we can catch the criminals fool enough to leave DNA behind... This is a GOOD thing.
All they do is process it and record the CODIS score which is completely useless for anything but ID. If fact, knowing your CODIS for family members is a good thing, since there are alot of ways you can die where DNA is all that's left.
It can't reveal that you have geek genes and so women shouldn't risk sex with you, so slashdoters can all relax.
And a cheak swab is not exactly "invasive", the fingerprinting process is much more likely to involve the police having to beat you to unconsciousness.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
If you are arrested for something you didn't do, then yes, you will be more likely to be caught for a subsequent crime you did commit. Thing is, you did commit the crime. This is nothing more than extra efficiency for law enforcement. We should thank these folks for decreasing costs and increasing convictions.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
"DNA can't be faked." No DNA can, but it sure as hell can be planted. Please take a good unbiased look at the police and explain why I should trust them?
We are talking about peole who have only been arrested, not convicted. Persons who are convicted fellons can already be made to give DNA samples in Califorina.
If this rich bastard is so gung ho for this then he can be the first person to give a DNA sample after all he has nothing to hide. Tjis is a asshat idea that will only be loved by ass hats, crooked cops and DA's and the simple minded.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
#1. DNA test everyone arrested for a FELONY and run a match through DNA samples from other cases.
.1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).
#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.
#3. All people CONVICTED of FELONIES will have their DNA taken again (the last sample was purged in #2). This sample can stay in the databases forever.
#4. Any DNA samples will ONLY be used to compare to other DNA samples from criminal cases. No scanning for violent dispositions (as you mentioned) nor any paternity suits or ANYTHING.
#5. All DNA matching will require at least double blind. I don't trust cops.
#6. There will be random checks done (no less than
I think DNA matching is good idea, but I don't trust the cops with it. I want lots of checks and balances and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted. Keep the honest cops honest and don't keep records on innocent citizens.
A ten percent increase in fines revenue is not going to cover the expense of sending DNA to the lab for every arrest in the state. We're not talking about an extra fifty bucks an arrest here; sending DNA in to a lab costs between a thousand and two thousand dollars! This is an excellent example of why initiatives are a bad idea; the public gets a hair up its ass, and makes a huge change that has not been properly thought out. If the state gets the responsibilty of enforcing this policy, CA voters had better realize that they're going to be footing a pretty hefty bill.
~SL
On the way back I was detained by Redding PD on suspicion of public intoxication. They took me to the station for full prints, DNA and history check. They held me until morning. I was never arrested or charged (I have a clean record). I was detained because the PD was conducting an emphasis patrol on a troublesome motel.
The application of civil rights in California has slipped somewhat, I believe. I left California the next day and have not returned since. I would I recommend California as a good place to visit or do business.
You forgot that a person may have left their DNA at the scene of the crime but may have had nothing to do with the crime. I'm pretty sure my DNA is present at my friends houses. If a crime got committed there would I become a suspect? What if I simply lend someone something of mine that has my DNA on it? That way I wouldn't have ever had to visit the scene, yet my DNA would be there.
Silly rabbit
Or unless I plant it there.
After all, if it's there and it's your DNA, you had to have been there!
Hair samples are really easy to get and even easier to drop.
I promise that this will happen without this law, but this is only going to make it go faster.
How long until some thug decides it's easy to walk past you, grab some of your hair (just one or two strands that you won't even notice), kill someone, drop the hair on the victim and then tip the cops that it was you?
The ways that are possible to get this sample are _endless_, they could pose as a janitor at your work taking your skin flakes from keyboard, perhaps they could go to your gym and use your hair from your brush?
Then the police come to arrest you and forceable dna sample proves you were at the crime scene. You had no proper reason for being around. Infact all your cover story about being somewhere else, that's not possible. You see, your DNA shows it so.
It's much like what happened in the USSA with the police snitches. They had power, they could screw you badly without having a reason.
In a police state, everyone has something to fear. Innocent or not.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
For instance, look up a British case (another link), where the DNA from a blood sample found at the crime scene was compared against Britain's national database. A match was found, with odds of 1 in 37 million of being wrong. The man was convicted of the crime.
The problem? He had advanced Parkinson's disease and lived 320 km from the crime scene. He couldn't even dress himself, let alone drive a car.
The problem is one of comparision - since you can't compare the entire 3 trillion base pair genome, you have to make do by comparing a small part of it - which, while it may have a "1 in 37 million" chance of being wrong, might actually be wrong after all.
Look, let's be clear. You pulled that out of your ass.
The truth is that "implied consent" laws don't give the cops carte blanche to take a blood sample.
For example, in California, the cops must charge you with DUI or other violation or have a reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated. They can't just stop you on a whim and ask you for a blood sample. And yes, implied consent exists, but contrary to what you stated, there is no "use of force" authorized. However, you will have your license suspended and face jail time if the offense is upheld. (Note, California laws are particularly stringent - AFAIK not all states have will give you jail time for merely refusing to take the test. Also, even in California, bloodwork is currently taken to test for drug/alcohol content, not for DNA samples.)
> YMMV
Ha-ha. Indeed.
So in sum, there is a kernel of truth in what you are saying, but in reality things are not nearly so dire.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
This may be one of the most powerful reasons for DNA recordkeeping (at least for those that are convicted). Many of those released from death row after being convicted are exonerated by old DNA evidence combined with new analysis technology. It's a sad reality of our justice system that, despite its reasonable attempt at assuring fairness, some innocent individuals do end up behind bars. I can't imagine how many innocent people would waste away in jail if law enforcement simply disposed of all the evidence after the trial. It is critical to keep evidence and information around, because it is entirely possible that it can be used to exonerate the wrongfully imprisoned. DNA evidence falls cleanly into that category. That said, I do agree that DNA information should be expunged if charges are dropped or the prosecution fails to acheive conviction.
Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.
I want double blind tests of clean DNA submitted at random intervals to "prove" that the system will not flag the innocent.
If clean DNA is run and it comes back saying that it is linked to a crime, it shows that there is a problem with the system.
The important thing to remember is that any DNA matching will just about "prove" that you're "guilty" of that crime. It will be up to you to show that you didn't do it.
Given that humans will be involved, there will be mistakes. So the planning has to include methods of testing for errors. And repeated, random, testing.
Also, a series of checks to see where and why those errors were made and a review process to fix the problem(s) as they are identified.
Don't trust the cops.
Don't trust the lab technicians.
Don't trust anyone involved with it.
Perhaps we are a bit overworried about all this. Consider for example your shirt. You know, the one you wore to the bar last night at about 11 pm. The one you wore pushing through the crowd & getting a little closer to that pretty thing in the cheap sunglasses. By today, since you didn't do laundry, you've got SOME DNA from about 180 people clinging to your body and falling off in hairs, lint balls, and bits of dry sweat as you rob the convenience store... What on earth good will it do law enforcecment?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I think there will be a notable case in the next couple of years where someone intentionally plants some subtle but very incriminating DNA evidence to incriminate someone else. Unfortunately, I think the police and the forensic investigators are buying the "infallible DNA" story as much as the juries. I think they would really like to find surprising DNA evidence to convict a judge, captain of industry, member of the clergy, etc.
Disclaimer: I've never watched the CSI television show.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
One thing that is hard to do with finger prints is to leave someone else's at a crime scene. With DNA, however, it is not so difficult to imagine a whole new business starting up, which is the collection of DNA junk and bottling it.
So there you are, a smarter felon than usual, you commit some terrible crime, but you thoughtfully get out your DNA bomb, and set it off just like an insect fogger, painting the crime scene with the DNA of 100,000 individuals --- and in far greater quantity than what you left. If you've been a little careful, you'll generate a sufficient quantity of chaos to
- bring the DNA lab to its knees, or
- get some unfortunate schmuck tossed in your stead (remember the Portland OR lawyer whose fingerprints got mangled by the FBI for the Spanish bombing? Oops.), or
- you just get an expert witness to point out that a DNA bomb has been set off, and that the crime scene DNA is effectively worthless, including
...
... set off DNA bombs *elsewhere* which include your own DNA, thus presenting credible evidence that your own DNA has been captured for DNA bombs used by other fiendish folk
I guess the point is that we may be in a rather unique little window of time when DNA evidence is actually useful --- it just can't be that long before effective countermeasures are readily available to the thoughtful criminal. Go read some Phillip K Dick scifi to learn how to think about such things. "Minority Report" gives a perfectly entertaining presentation about the potential misuse of "indisputable" information.So: if you wonder where could you get a bunch of junk DNA without working too hard
I'm feeling a bit foolish about actually describing a potentially lucrative business opportunity. I take it all back. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.
Do you really trust the government with DNA records? Why are they needed? Do folks think that there aren't enough people in jail?
These days you don't have to be in the tinfoil hat crowd to have grounds for concern.
I have to blame our justice system for this one, not that I can think of anything better. When you have two sides arguing in a court room not even being allowed to represent themselves lest be labeled stupid, the case turns into a drama production by lawyers and witnesses who care less for truth and more for victory and money.
If my view if someone is found guilty, any lawyer representing them must answer to perjury charges depending on the circumstances (as well as the defendant). This is also quite plausible in reverse-- a plaintiff could also be charged with perjury if the ruling is such that what they said is ruled false.
Lawyers are completely unaccountable for their actions in court, and many just play it like a game. There is little more serious than court yet circus high-priced lawyers are becoming too common. Perhaps it is merely pop culture that is spreading this image but it is nevertheless wrong and harmful.
How about UTFT: understand the f*cking technology
He who is merely arrested forfeits personal biometric identification (DNA) which is not at all like fingerprints, but carries very personal and private data about his genetic makeup, health, probability of disease and much else.
No, it is just like a fingerprint, except that it is compared by a computer and is not subject to the same fuzzy matching and "guesses" that happen with conventional fingerprints. Your DNA fingerprint is not a sequence of your genome. It does not reveal any private data about you except your gender (which would have been noted on your arrest form anyway.) It does not reveal anything about your health, it reveals nothing about what diseases you might get in the future, etc.
Here is a quick reality check for you: if it was so easy and cost effective to get your genetic testing done at the police crime lab, why is it that it costs the medical system thousands of dollars to do a test to see if you are suceptible to a single disease?
You do have to be careful though. The more microsatellites they add (per person) the stronger any match will be. However, you have to balance this against the number of people in the database. I think that most jurys, if told that because the DNA matched, it is 1 million times more likely that this match is real than just a random match, they would convict. But if the database has 1 million people in it, then you'd expect one match by chance.
The end result is DNA evidence is a powerful tool, but it has to be used in conjunction with the other evidence. DNA evidence alone is not enough.
Back up the boat, boys, the anchor's fallen off.
The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 701 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. The Russian Federation is a distant second place, with 584 per 100k. (Source: International Centre for Prison Studies.) We're standing silently by, watching as our civil rights and protections are being stripped away at an alarming rate. The Fourth Amendment is being all but repealed... and some bozo lawyer in The People's Republic of California wants to make it still easier to put more of us behind bars?
There seems to be some flawed notion that law enforcement is failing in this country -- the fact is that the violent crime rate has been falling for several years. It's not because we have incarcerated so many, but simple demographics: The number of males in the more crime-prone age group has decreased.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.