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).

Comments

I agree with this

[(1337) God]

If we already fingerprint criminals, what's the big deal if we take a "biological footprint", if you will, of them?

Re:I agree with this

[MoonBuggy]

Maybe, but firstly I'd say it's only fair to take it after conviction not arrest - if you haven't done anything they have absolutely no business even knowing your name, let alone your DNA. Secondly, you'd want some solid legislation in place to prevent the use of as-yet impossible sequencing techniques to scan the database for people of a violent disposition (for example) since while possibly helpful many people can control themselves and do not deserve to be bumped up the suspect list.

It can work, but as with all things the potential for abuse should be eliminated before its introduction.

Re:I agree with this

[CaptainFrito]

DNA sequencing is usually done on sequence fragments and not the entire genome. Therefore it's not as unique as one might be led to believe. Most criminologists (with a moral conscience) know this and many feel that this a useful tool to rule someone out, but it is not reliable enough to single someone out. Take the case of identical twins: identical genomes; you would have to rely on fingerprints.

And the potential for abuse is just too huge a risk. And since fingerprints can distinguish beteen identical twins, it should be obvious even to the casual observer that physical uniqueness is determined by more than the entire DNA sequence. Moreover, we already have fingerprinting, so what's the need for DNA? My guess is that the other uses of DNA are too compelling, such as letting insurance companies determine your premiums against worst-case risks, while simultaneously disqualifying coverage for diseases you likely would contract.

I read somewhere (can't find the reference ATM) that the portion of DNA that is PCR'd for identification purposes repeats about 1:400. My guess that in some rural communities and suburban or urban ghettos it might even be more frequently repeated in the sample population.

I am left to wonder how much money this politician, his relatives, heirs, assigns, financial backers, etc., have invested in DNA fingerprinting companies and databasing companies...

Re:I agree with this

[tylernt]

If only the guilty have anything to fear, then why do you have the right to remain silent after an arrent? Why aren't you required to testify against yourself in court? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear, so you might as well be forced to speak, right?

Re:I agree with this

[harlows_monkeys]

If we already fingerprint criminals, what's the big deal if we take a "biological footprint", if you will, of them?

The problem is that law enforcement does not understand how to use DNA. It's true that DNA uniquely identifies an individual (well, to the level of twins and such). However, that is only if you do a very extensive DNA comparison. They don't do this in law enforcement. That is expensive. They only do a comparison at a few points, and that doesn't uniquely identify a person.

What this means is that when used in a Bayesian manner, DNA evidence is very powerful, but when used independently, it sucks. So, for example, if there is a crime, and they have recovered samples from the crime scene, and then, based on other means, they have identified you, me, and a few other people as suspects, and my DNA matches the samples, then it's pretty much a lock--those are my samples. On the other hand, if they just take the samples, run them through their DNA database, and I am the only match, that is pretty much worthless.

An analogy would be if they somehow could tell from evidence at a crime scene the last two digits of the criminal's social security number and the last two digits of the criminal's phone number. If they have three suspects acquired through traditional means, and one has a matching SSN and phone number, that is pretty clearly their man. If, however, they just go to the phone book, find all matching phone numbers, and then check their SSNs and find a match, and that's all they have, they have nothing. There will be plenty of other people that match.

That's basically how DNA matches are done. They compare at a few bases, which is kind of like comparing phone and SSN numbers at a few digits.

Re:I agree with this

[jmarpet]

I am a corrections officer, in a southern state.

We DNA anyone brought in for a felony, or when their charge is one of several on a special list, like Battery on a Teacher, Anything having to do with Domestic Violence, etc.

We DNA through a Buccal Swab (Cheek cell swab with a big Q-tip). If and when someone is convicted, they are DNA'ed again, with a blood sample.

The database is never purged, and once in, you are in. Period.

Do I agree? I take these samples, and when they trained us, we swabbed each other. I made damn sure my swabs went in the garbage. Let's leave it at that.

Re:I agree with this

[epistemology]

Why wait for a conviction? Or even a crime? Just take DNA from everyone at birth. You guys are too quick to give up your privacy. You are ceding too much power to the government. Why couldn't the government just say, target nigge... I mean inner city types by making it a felony to smoke crack, but only a misdemeanor to do powdered cocaine and then differentially enforce the law so that we get a good database of, you know, those kind of people who usually commit crimes.

Re:I agree with this

[Inspector Lopez]

mod parent up, and listen to the CarTalk "Puzzler" from yesterday, which presents a form of this problem.

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 ... how about the dumpsters at McDonalds? How about the garbage cans in restrooms (where you'll get the DNA of those upstanding citizens who actually wash their hands after peeing)?

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.

Re:I agree with this

[Hizonner]

DNA sequencing is usually done on sequence fragments and not the entire genome.

In fact, most forensic DNA work was originally done using RFLP mapping, which doesn't involve sequencing anything at all. Sequencing is relatively recent. Most (all?) of the databases are still based on RFLP.

Therefore it's not as unique as one might be led to believe.

If you bothered to read the literature, you'd find that there's been a great deal of study of exactly how reliable it is in various circumstances. Also, if you think about it for a minute, you'll realize that there's no a priori reason to care about what percentage of the genome is examined; the question is how much variability there is in the part that is examined. Additional variability in the unexamined parts has nothing to do with the reliability of the test.

Most criminologists (with a moral conscience) know this and many feel that this a useful tool to rule someone out, but it is not reliable enough to single someone out. Take the case of identical twins: identical genomes; you would have to rely on fingerprints.

A criminologist is a social scientist who deals with the motivations and social contexts of crimes. You are thinking of "criminalists", or "forensic DNA examiners", who are the people who do crime lab work.

I know a lot of these people personally; it so happens that one of my parents was involved in the development of forensic DNA from the beginning. Some of the people I know are involved with things like the Innocence Project. Some of them are private practitioners who typically testify for the defense; if those people have a bias, it's toward clearing people, not toward nailing the innocent.

I have never heard any of them say that they would never use DNA evidence to uniquely identify somebody. Not once.

I have heard many of them say, loudly and repeatedly, that there are circumstances under which they wouldn't use DNA to "finger" anybody, including, but probably not limited to, cases where there's a possibility that a close relative of the suspect was involved, cases where samples were degraded or contaminated. I've never heard them say that they'd never do it. I have heard them say, rather vehemently, that DNA is a lot more reliable than the old serological tests that put a lot of people into prison in the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course, DNA is also more reliable than eyewitnesses, but then almost anything is more reliable than an eyewitness.

No, you can't apply DNA, or any other technique, mechanically, but to say that it's intrinsically unusable is just silly. It's about the most reliable thing out there.

And since fingerprints can distinguish beteen identical twins, it should be obvious even to the casual observer that physical uniqueness is determined by more than the entire DNA sequence. Moreover, we already have fingerprinting, so what's the need for DNA?

Think about how you're using it.

1. Criminals don't leave fingerprint cards at crime scenes; in fact, they seem oddly reluctant to leave anything at all if they can avoid it. You may have hair, or a blood spatter, or semen, or saliva, and no fingerprint, or no decent fingerprint. You want to find out if the person who committed this crime is in your database or not; you can't query on a fingerprint, because you don't have one. DNA is another completely independent way for you to find a suspect.
2. I don't know if it's still true, but coding fingerprints for database lookups used to be a time-consuming, error-prone manual process. Don't be misled by the biometric authentication systems you see on computers. First of all, those systems don't work as well as advertised. Secondly, they're usually trying to confirm an identity, not find one in a mass of candidat

It sounds a little bit like overkill

[sixteenraisins]

Perhaps if instead of taking DNA samples from everyone arrested for a felony, if they only took samples from people convicted of a felony. After all, a convicted felon already forfeits certain rights upon conviction. But what about people wrongly arrested?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[FlipmodePlaya]

What about people wrongly convicted?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[gatzke]

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"?

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Alan Hicks]

What about people wrongly convicted?

Well we don't exactly throw out the justice system because it's imperfect do we? Fact of the matter is sometimes some one is going to be wrongly convicted, so should we stop putting people in prison or taking their fingerprints because they might really be innocent?

People aren't thrown in jail because they are guilty, or kept out because they are innocent. People are punished under the law because a jury of their peers found them guilty in a (supposed to be) fair trial. Moreover, in America, criminal juries must reach a unanimous decision, else we have a mistrial and no verdict is found. It shouldn't be all that often that 12 jurers all reach the same guilty verdict concerning a man whom is innocent. I can't imagine coming up with a more fair system, or one more likely not to imprison innocent people (at the risk of letting guilty people go free).

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[ConsumedByTV]

How about Brave New World.

This is more of a self imposed lack of freedom. It's begged for!

For Safetys Sake! Take some Soma!

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Cali Thalen]

I can't speak for the country, but in California it seems like about 30% of people arrested for felonies are not convicted (as opposed to 'found not guilty)

http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/candd/ cd 96/cd96obts.pdf

Also, DNA gets you a lot more than a fingerprint does. You only get a fingerprint under good conditions (such as, the person wasn't wearing gloves), but you can gather DNA evidence much more frequently. This is especially useful in sexual assault cases, but there are a lot of instances where DNA is left at a crime scene even when no fingerprints are left behind.

DNA also can tell you a lot more about a person than a fingerprint. Even if you don't have the person's DNA on file, you can still develop a profile of the person given a good DNA sample. You can get the person's race and sex, at the very least. All that having a fingerprint of a person tells you is that they have a finger.

OTOH, DNA would be a bit easier to plant than a fingerprint (leave a few hair samples from someone else at the crime scene) than it would be to leave a fake fingerprint.

I'd not be overly concerned if the government had my DNA on file, as I don't generally commit those kinds of crimes :P Then again, I'm not the tinfoil-hat-wearing type, so I don't generally spend much time thinking about how that kind of info could be used to oppress me...

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[snarkh]

Perhaps they can get it removed, but how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?

You are kidding, right?

E.g, http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm: For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an "error rate" of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving they are innocent ...

And that is just for the most serious crimes, where the evidence is checked much more thoroughly.

I would imagine tens or hundreds thousand people are wrongly arrested every year.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[bobhagopian]

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.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Epistax]

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.

Re:It sounds a little bit like overkill

[Jim McCoy]

DNA also can tell you a lot more about a person than a fingerprint. Even if you don't have the person's DNA on file, you can still develop a profile of the person given a good DNA sample. You can get the person's race and sex, at the very least. All that having a fingerprint of a person tells you is that they have a finger.

This is complete BS. A DNA fingerprint does not work on the same markers that are used for determining these features. You will get the person's gender (e.g XX or XY) but that is it. It will not tell you that person's ethnicity, age, eye color, tendency to get diabetes in old age, or anything else that other genetic testing can determine.

It is just a pattern that happens to be unique to a particular individual (or set of individuals in the case of identitical twins) that came from a particular zygote.

Please keep the hysterical FUD to a minimum.

Look on the bright side

[magefile]

No one wants their DNA in a database, right? Maybe it'll act as a deterrent! (Laugh, it's funny)

wow!

[mboverload]

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.

Good for a couple reasons

[dotslashconfig]

First - it makes it easier to determine if a felony was committed by a previously arrested criminal. It also expedites the speed at which information is shared if we can pinpoint perpetrators in this way.
Second - should someone be sentenced to death, reversing said conviction/sentencing is easier if you have DNA evidence to back up claims. Though, I suppose it sucks for the criminal if they then do some retests, and the final verdict of the testing is that you did it.

Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[RLiegh]

So, let me get this right; you get arrested, have a dna sample taken and then -if youre found innocent... ...what happens to the dna? (how likely do you think it is that the sample will be destroyed in practice, even if thats the policy?)

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[jfengel]

"Upon written notification from a law enforcement agency that a person is no longer a suspect in a criminal investigation, the Department of Justice DNA laboratory shall remove the supect sample from its data bank files." -- Article 3, section 297(b)(2).

Whether you trust them to do so is another point, especially given the next sentence which says that if (by accident, of course) they don't delete it, and you get convicted of something based on that evidence, that conviction stands.

Security standards for that database are somewhat underspecified.

Article 5 is all about expungment of the samples. Basically, you request in writing that you've been cleared of all charges, and if nobody objects, they have to destroy it within half a year.

Again, whether you trust them to actually do it... well, we trust the police to carry guns, don't we?

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[jay2003]

Under the initiative, those acquitted have to petition to court to remove their sample. Seems like an undue burden after being falsely accused. I'd be more likely to support the initiative if the samples were only taken after conviction.

From the article:

Although the initiative allows people to have their DNA information pulled from the database and destroyed if they have been found innocent or released without charges, it requires a court order and a complicated stack of paperwork before it can be done.

Re:Presumption of innocence..? hello...?

[mburns]

This proposed law does not meet constitutional standards. Any intelligent court will toss evidence obtained by intrusive means not following from a warrant. A popular vote is insufficient to change this safeguard.

Gee, sounds like..

[bigattichouse]

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.

Why stop there?

[Ninwa]

Come on, do it already. Take and store DNA samples when we're born, you know you want to.

too far

[Sinful_Shirts]

So sometime in the future we are going to have people being arrested because their DNA indicates that they have a very aggresive/compulsive/sadistic whatever predisposition. It's easy for the authorities to say that they are only going to use it for crimes, but who knows what they might decide to do in the future. I think that this is going to far.

Re:too far

[ConsumedByTV]

C'mon, you've never ever heard of a government or police force abusing it's power?

How about other people getting into the data base by just joining a police force?

Think about how easy that would be?

You could join the police force and get paid to have access to these records.

Everyone they arrest?

[MacFury]

What if you are arrested but innocent and subsequently not convicted of the original crime you were arrested for? Would they have to destroy the sample?

Perhaps some cop looking for a promotion would just plant some DNA evidence at the scene to make sure you get convicted.

I'd have to say if a cop told me to give him a DNA sample, I'd respond "blow me" :-)

Re:Everyone they arrest?

[Paster Of Muppets]

Then don't let the Police hold the samples. Hold them at a Government Science Lab where the Police cannot access them unless they are investigating a crime that has already taken place. Then the problem arises when the Government wants to implicate you in a crime...

Re:He who commits the crime...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

'arrested'?

[Junta]

The article says anyone 'arrested', not convicted, which gives me concern. People can get arrested and found to be truly innocent. Fingerprints aren't particularly invasive, simply a unique identifier, but DNA, as they say, could be examined for more information about what traits a person could carry. Granted, fingerprints aren't nearly as reliable and much easier to eradicate the presence of compared to DNA samples and the DNA bank would be useful, but once you go beyond tracking that which is merely unique from person to person to that which potentially lays out behavorial tendencies, health issues, etc, it becomes much more disconcerting.

An interesting film based on the premise of too much focus on DNA tracking is GATTACA.

Re:'arrested'?

[geek]

Fingerprints are also taken to identify you IN the prison system. In case of riot they need to know who is who. I visited one a long time ago and had mine taken "in case of hostage scenario" so they could make sure that after releasing me, I was who I said I was. Fingerprints on arrest are as much for your protection as they are for control measures. DNA doesn't serve this purpose so they truly are different animals altogether.

I don't get it

[tobar mersa]

Maybe it's just me, but I really do not understand why they will take a DNA sample of every felon. I guess I didn't realize that the commision of fraud required leaving something from which DNA could be obtained.

Yippie!

[Duncan3]

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.

There is a brighter side to all of this

[Tim_F]

Scientists will now be able to predetermine criminal behaviour in individuals based on their DNA. At or before birth doctors will be able to tell parents wether or not their children will be predisposed to becoming criminals. THis will be a good thing for society.

The next step

[freejung]

So this is just a rehash of the so-called "slippery slope" argument, but it applies and is important.

This sounds eminently reasonable, though I'm not sure I like the "arrested for a felony" part, it would be much more reasonable to use convictions. But they print you on arrest, so why shouldn't they take your DNA too, right?

Ah, but they fingerprint you for a drivers' license too. They didn't, at one time, but now they do. Because the argument was made that, well, if we take your prints on arrest, why shouldn't we take them for a drivers license too? That will, of course, be the next step.

I would actually be completely in favor of this if we had a resonable law enforcement system, which we don't, and if there were any way to assure that this will not be used as an argument for taking DNA from everyone, which there isn't. As it is, I think this sort of thinking needs to be stopped before it spreads.

Gattaca, here we come?

[btharris]

Things like this naturally conjure up images of sci-fi dystopias. Ironic that although science fiction has repeatedly shown us the horrors of the misuse of science, we nevertheless charge forward blindly and even aspire to achieve these dystopias of science fiction.

Iceland has recently had a major controversy over creating a general DNA database of the people. Maybe if we can't learn from fiction, we can from reality.

Question

[DarkHelmet]

I know this may be incredibly ignorant on my part. Keep in mind that I do software for a living, and not forensics or anything of the matter...

But would it be possible to store a hash of a person's DNA? I know that people who run open source software typically check any sort of download for MySQL, PHP, or anything else for that matter against an MD5 string? Now, why couldn't somebody's DNA sequencing match against something like SHA1 or MD5?

I figure it might have to do with mutations / etc screwing up the hash generated. But isn't there some kind of hash that could compensate for that sort of thing?

I'm just wondering if there's a way of matching DNA without storing sensitive information like possible health defects, etc..

Personally, I would not mind something like this used for homocide or rape. I'm just concerned, like everyone else, that this will be a slippery slope towards other things.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, everyone has a very odd understanding of DNA fingerprinting. They take a sample of cells. They DO NOT and CANNOT sequence your entire DNA sequence (the Human Genome Project took years to do this for just two people). What they do to make a fingerprint is to copy the DNA, slice the copy up with enzymes looking for certain sequences, then look at the relative weightings of the bits. This IS the hash that you're talking about, only it's a biological hash function, not a mathematical one.

Jeez, I wish people would find out about the technology (it IS /. after all!) before running scared. We're now seeing "satellites tracking where ex-felons are" (no we're not: the GPS system is passive; it's the box on your leg that's (failing) to track you). We're seeing "fingerprints will identify you from a database" (no they won't: there's about a 1:10000 match chance, so matching a random fingerprint against a 250,000,000 database is going to get a lot of false positives).

You know, (supposed) technologists talking to politicians is a very dangerous combination..

Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[skraps]

I don't see the problem with this. The standard argument with "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" revolves around potential abuse of the system. In this case, however, there isn't much abuse possible. DNA is DNA. Can't be faked.

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.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[geek]

Hello,

It appears after your 2004 arrest (without conviction) that your DNA profile has come up in a new and ongoing criminal case. As a result, you are now a "person of interest" and subsequently unable to apply for security clearance of any level. We have also taken the liberty of informing your employer who btw formally requests you do not return to work tomorrow. We will release your friends and family members from questioning shortly.

Yours truly,
The Secret Service

Gee, no potential for abuse here. All that's required is the "label" or appearance of guilt and your life is ruined. This is exactly why privacy is so important.

Re:Can you say "knee-jerk"?

[geek]

Just because they can already do it, doesn't mean we should make it even easier for them. Sorry but this is why we have the second amendment. Before long we'll need our well armed militias to defend us from our own police state. It's no mystery why one of the first things Hitler did was institute gun control. After that he started slapping numbers on jews hands to "more easily identify the criminals". Then we just need national ID cards (stars on our chests) and the stage is set once again.

search seizure?

[atarione]

Hmmm...

if you have just been 'arrested' aren't you still presumed innocent?

why should a 'false' arrest get's people's DNA into some big brotherish database. and isn't my DNA mine does the Gov really have the right to 'seize my DNA???'

Not clear cut, more information is required.

[twitter]

What's the difference between people arrested for a felony and everyone else? The answer is reasonable suspicion. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but obviously society has some power over people under reasonable suspicion. If society had no power over them, there would be no arrest.

The question then is if DNA sampling is part of a reasonable arrest. The fears expressed in the article were:

"DNA is not like a fingerprint, since getting it is more invasive and it holds information beyond mere identification,'' said Tania Simoncelli, a science and technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Storing it permanently for future criminal investigations doesn't comply with the Constitution.''

Is that true? What information does a DNA "fingerprint" reveal? How is it any different from storing an image of someone's face, fingerprints and other identifying information permanently for future criminal investigation?

Re:Not clear cut, more information is required.

[phoenix.bam!]

Genetic diseases for one. Do you want your insurance company checking up on your DNA record and finding out that you have a dispotision to some costly disease and dropping you? Even convited felons don't deserve that.
How about if a violence gene is identified and those who have it get a +1 guilty in their court trials just because of that?

Hashes have collisions

[melted]

If you want to use something as evidence you have to have the real thing. You can still use the hash for quick lookup, though.

Re:Hashes have collisions

[Joe5678]

I'm relying on intro college biology here, but I don't think current DNA samples are unique anyway.

They just have an enzyme that cuts the DNA at specific markers which appear at different locations in the DNA for different people, normally there's a dozen or so of these cuts. And then they run some water over them that pushes the different segments along a plate. The longer the string of DNA that was cut, the heavier it is and the shorter the distance it goes along the plate. So you end up with a banding pattern at the end of the test.

This banding pattern does NOT produce a unique signature, there's only a dozen or so bars on it across a 6-12" area. What you do get is probability when using it as evidence. For example, the odds of the DNA found at a crime scene and the odds of a suspect having the same banding pattern is very slim unless it's the same DNA.

DNA evidence is NOT good for proving people guilty, but only for proving people innocent.

DNA ca't be faked.

[Simple-Simmian]

"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.

Re:DNA ca't be faked.

[skraps]

"DNA can't be faked." No DNA can, but it sure as hell can be planted.

I don't buy this. If they simply sequence your DNA and store the results in an electronic database somewhere, then where do you think they can produce enough blood/urine/semen/hair, etc to "plant" at a crime scene? Unless there is a significant amount at the crime scene, I doubt it would be useful in court.

If they have already picked out someone to frame, they could accomplish this today by just going to your house and taking some hair out of your hairbrush or something. The DNA database doesn't make it any easier.

Public Office

[aashenfe]

If more laws are enacted like this, maybe we should demand a law where anybody holding a public office should be required to give a dna sample.

So, there are two of us, at least.

[dotz]

+1 here. Taking some samples at crime site also involves analyzing DNA found in semen, sputum, blood, and many more. Having whole DNA collected gives much more possibilities. Also, I agree with collecting DNA samples of people who are arrested and not yet convinced for a felony - no matter, what ID I have, no matter, what does my face look like, if the same DNA was found in a suspect some else place, well, you got me then.

Just like IP address. Only longer. You got mine already, what's the difference if you had my DNA right now? Yes, you could clone me, perhaps, someday or use my DNA to artifical fertilization. I don't mind both, I was born to spread my DNA, just like we all were. That's biology, that's evolution, it would be hard to disagree with that.

BTW: jokes aside. Please :)

Big Brother is watching!

[midifarm]

For all of you that haven't, please read George Orwell's 1984. This is yet another step towards that type of regime encompassing every aspect of our lives enslaving us like drones and sheep. For every bit of privacy that we give up, we're one more step towards putting on the yoke of opression. It doesn't matter if it's a criminal or as "benign" as getting your driver's license, you should have the right to privacy and freedom from tyranny from your own government

Putting
Americans
Through
Rediculously
Inhumane
Opression
and
Tyranny

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Peace

Slightly different opinion.

[khasim]

#1. DNA test everyone arrested for a FELONY and run a match through DNA samples from other cases.

#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 .1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).

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.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[ConsumedByTV]

#6. There will be random checks done (no less than .1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).

What?!

No way.

Absoultely not.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[silverbolt]

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.>/i>

I don't see this happening once law enforcement starts liking the power they have with all this new information. No government organization will willingly give up saved data.

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.

You mean, just like the database of people submitting to a background check for purchase of a firearm was purged (search for "Texas"), as requred by law? Yeah, I trust my government to scrub the database like it says it will.

Say, did I hear something about a bridge for sale?

Re:Slightly different opinion.

[Shakrai]

and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted

That's a nice theory and in theory it's the way they do it with fingerprints but reality is somewhat different.

I found myself arrested for a felony I didn't commit and fingerprinted. Well $15,000 and a grand jury later the charges went away -- no conviction, no plea bargin, they were dismissed and/or dropped. New York State law requires them to return my fingerprints and all photographs to me (or destroy them).

That sounds just fine right? Nope -- guess what? Whenever you are arrested the policy agency typically forwards your fingerprints to the FBI -- the FBI isn't obligated to delete them if the charges turn out to be unfounded. The best thing that can happen is your state can "ask" them to delete them.

So now the Feds have my fingerprints -- not a damn thing I can do about it. Ponder that for a moment before you get all gung-ho about taking DNA samples (what's next? Retina scans?) of people when they are arrested. For my humble opinion it should be when they are convicted.

An inevitable scenario.

[Biotech9]

In the bad old days of Northern Irelands terrorism, a family of catholics were arrested for bomb making. One of the family members was one of the guilford four. The evidence used to convict the rest of the family came from a semtex detecting machin, which was later found to be contaminated. Every test came up positive for explosive(, laughably, there were no negative controls).

Now Imagine the possibilities with DNA evidence, as it is, DNA is becoming very relied upon for convictions, and the police are getting overly reliant on it. In the future, someone arrested and sampled may get a full iron clad water tight conviction over a laboratory error. A mix up of the DNA sample taken, and a DNA sample taken from the scene of the crime...

This isn't even taking into account the fact that a crooked cop could find it very easy to contaminate a crime scene sample with DNA taken from a suspect.

These concerns could be overcome with good safegaurding, and good laboratory practise, but if the past is anything to go by, it's time to get paranoid.

Re:An inevitable scenario.

[Jane_Dozey]

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.

Do you know what a felony is?

[CSharpMinor]

I know someone who's a convicted felon. Want to know what the conviction is for? Graffiti.

That's right, he sprayed graffiti on someone's house when he was 18 and now he's a felon for life. And he gets a DNA sample taken.

How about people with more than $200 of pot on them? People who accidentally cut fiberoptic cables while digging in their backyards?

Do people not realize how idiotic laws are in this country? More than 30 states still consider it a felony to have sex out of wedlock!

have a drivers "license"?

[zogger]

You don't need to be charged with a thing if you are driving with a license, you have already given consent to have a blood and/or a hair sample taken because of the contract you signed with the state agreeing to your legal ward position and under their care to be permitted to travel.

It's in effect in all 50 states and in DC now. Some areas are already doing this at "random courtesty checkpoints", where everyone is stopped and checked, and if you refuse, they are authorised the use of force to make you comply, all the way to strapping you down. This initiative in california is just a way to mandate a sampling procedure at every (felony) *arrest*, but it's already legal to do so at every traffic stop-no matter the reason,no arrest is required, no charges, merely if they choose to do it, they can mutter "suspicion of ..." yada yada, that's enough.

FWIW/YMMV

Re:have a drivers "license"?

[xigxag]

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.

Further background

[aka-ed]

Bruce Harrington, the lawyer pushing for his, is doing so because his brother and his sister-in-law were murdered in their homes a couple of decades ago.

The ACLU is doing what they can to slow or stop it.

Here's some informative blog entries:

http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/1780

http://www.socallawblog.com/archives/001186.html

Idiots!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Great yet another attempt erode liberties. Someone should set up a site documenting these travesties.

And as usual the guy responsible has a ROCK SOLID excuse.

"People I love were killed!!"

Oh really! How awful! I guess it's OK to lead us all one step closer to a police state then! Here Swab me first!!!!

Of course he'll call us all heartless cranks who want criminals to get off and he'll say that this won't REALLY undermine democracy. Just like the PATRIOT act!

God I hate these people. Why didn't he donate his money to funding more social programmes that reduce the amount of criminals at an early stage! But I guess that just wouldn't be as efftive as having a poorly administered DNA database now would it.

This is why initiatives suck

[SubliminalLove]

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

Re:This is why initiatives suck

[codegen]

Absolutely true. But unfortunately you have to fight against the T.V. culture built by shows such as C.S.I, where DNA samples are done on the spot with the investigator walking into the lab just as the laser printer prints out the DNA results.

These shows, while entertaining have little connnection with reality. When was the last time you saw a forensic analysis interogating suspects?

California adventure

[Anonymous Coward]

While on a business trip to California I had the misfortune to stay in the wrong motel in Redding. After work I had a beer (1) my room and went to another room in the motel to speak with a coworker.

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.

Re:California adventure

[aka-ed]

Police in many localities need to be better trained. Police in general need to be taught that there is a basic human dignity that everyone, even those who have committed the worst of crimes, must be granted, lest we lose our own (as in al gharib, where the prisoners seemed more dignified than their grinning, thumb-signaling guardians).

That said, we are quite accepting of the idea that people can be photographed upon arrest, and that these photos can be used to pursue suspects in unrelated crimes.

I understand the fears involved, but if our government would be more receptive to the concepts behind such words as "oversight" "transparency" and "accountability," a nationwide database of all citizens' dna could be of great benefit in many ways, the least of which may be crimefighting. Certainly it could provide a treasure trove of data for medical research.

Collect baby DNA? Been there, done that...

[sleepingsquirrel]

They already do.

Re:That's what they all say

[ConsumedByTV]

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.

DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[ggvaidya]

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.

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[EinarH]

I recently talked to some lab technicians about this. They argued that even if you did'nt account for human error the odds of being wrong are something like 1 in 20000/30000 depending on the methods.

So if one add the human errors (even reasonably smart peolpe like lab techs sometimes fail) the odds are below 1 in 10000. So if California checks their db with 1 million "records" they will get 100 false positives. Scary stuff.

But I guess this is up to the standards in California, because only criminals leave DNA samples on the scene. And since the people do have a felony history they are obviously guilty as the criminals they are..

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Moofie]

If you've got a means, motive and opportunity, why do you need the DNA database?

More likely, the means motive and opportunity can be strung together out of tenuous circumstantial "evidence" once the DNA match has found the One True Perpetrator.

Re:DNA fingerprinting can screw up!

[Scudsucker]

...or they could be mixed up at the lab, like how a man named Rene Sanchez, arrested for DWI, has his prints mixed up with a drug dealer by the name of Leo Rosario. He got hauled into court numerous times because the cops were sure he was the other guy, and even went through deportation hearings before the records were finally fixed. I thought of this case and thought of Brazil. The NYTimes had a nice article on Mr. Sanchez, but unfortunately its in their archives now (i.e. they want you to pay to access the article).

Let's start with the politicians

[PaK_Phoenix]

Let's make DNA swabbing a requirement to get into public office, and see just how bad they want it.

Re:Criminals aren't the only ones!

[Stonent1]

If you think that's bad, my mom made my dad give her a DNA sample before she would have his kid!

I have no big problem with...

[incom]

a DNA database for convictions, but for arrest? That's just stupid. And there should be a method for getting your info removed if you are wrongfully convicted and succesfully prove your innocence. It seems as though the proponents of this have alterior motives, and are counting on abusing the system i9n advance.

Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[khasim]

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.

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[servognome]

just replace random citizens, replace with random goverment official. Then there will be a vested inerest in the officials making the system as good as possible

Re:Not to test the citizens, to test the system.

[pu'u_bear]

I am confused. Your comment seems to indicate that there are some politicians that haven't committed crimes. While I have always thought that making our politicians use the same systems that we are imposing on the general populace (e.g. let us mandate that they are required to use Social Security and Medicare, then see how fast they get fixed), the fact that the majority of them are lying cheating philanderers gives me little faith in the "system".

sucks for people falsely accused

[r5t8i6y3]

a few years back i was falsely accused of breaking into and thieving half a dozen houses in broad daylight. a felony crime.

well, there i am, at home in my pajamas one morning and a knock at the door. two police officers, one local, one state trooper, ask if they can come in. being completely naive and a bit frightened i let them in.

they tell me that half a dozen homes were robbed in broad daylight and that neighbors said they saw a man fitting my dark complexion driving up and down the street days in advance of the robberies.

i explain (to no avail) to the officers that i had been on that road exactly *once* in my life (the day before) when i accompanied my girlfriend to her friend's home to feed her cat while she was away.

the officers didn't care what i had to say and they proceeded to play good-cop bad-cop and tell some enormous lies about me in the process. one of them asked if he could use my bathroom and then proceeded to case my home.

then they told me that they needed to take my picture and fingerprint all of my fingers. after about one hour they finally left.

after a few weeks had passed (in which i heard nothing from the police) i called the police department to find out what was going on. it took a couple weeks to get through the police bureaucracy, but eventually someone was able to tell me that i was no longer under suspicion.

when i expressed concern about having my picture and fingerprints taken and said i wanted them back i was told that wasn't possible. after expressing my displeasure and complaining to various people in the police department eventually my picture and fingerprints were released to me.

unfortunately, my friend who is a police officer told me that my picture and fingerprints had been scanned and sent to the national FBI database. when i asked him about having them removed from that database he gave me a look that indicated the possibility of that happening was as likely as a cold day in hell.

that experience taught me how easy it is to have your unique unchangeable biometric information stolen and forever stored in government databases just waiting to be abused.

Victim of Circumstance?

[Thunderstruck]

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?

DNA Evidence Is Ripe For Abuse

[Long-EZ]

With prosecutors telling juries that there is at most a one in ten billion chance of error, juries are convicting largely on the basis of DNA evidence. Even if the one in ten billion number is accurate for DNA matching, it does not address evidence tampering or human error.

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.

Petition for Privacy

[alset_tech]

After reading many of the concerns of fellow /.ers, I emailed Bruce E. Harrington (whose contact info can be found on the PDF) and posted a petition for California residents. May be of interest. The email reads as follows:

As a registered voter in the state of California (Oakland), I wish to express my concern regarding your DNA initiative. As such a policy will likely be emulated by other states in the future, I must request a strong system of checks and balances be implemented to protect citizens from potential abuse, as amending them after-the-fact will be difficult. It is important that such measures look far into the future when determining regulation.

I am aware that your proposed policy is, in part, to aid in the capture of criminals by scanning suspects in advance of a trial. I agree that this would be of great benefit in many cases. However, I must suggest that it is a violation to persons wrongfully arrested, as they will then have their DNA committed to file without cause. Even with provisions requiring that DNA samples for persons acquitted of wrong doing be destroyed, such a system has too great a potential for abuse.

My requests are simple and do not inhibit the usefulness of such a system:

1. DNA should only be taken from CONVICTED felons, rather than on arrest. This protects innocent citizens who are wrongfully arrested.

2. DNA samples must be expressly limited to criminal identification, without the possibility of use by other organizations (employers, insurance companies, etc). Also, future technologies and methods of identifying potentially violent or aggressive predisposition in suspects may also one day be abused in profiling, creating an unfair bias.

3. All DNA matches must be proven in a double-blind test by an independent party, to prevent corruption of evidence.

4. DNA samples should only be taken in relation to violent crime and other extraordinary circumstances. Felony charges for fraud, wire tampering, and other white collar crimes do not warrant DNA samples at present, regardless of their nature.

Thank you for your consideration,
Signature


***
I would encourage other Californians to send similar concerns to Mr. Harrington (please don't flame him).

Now, here's a thought....

[Calibax]

1. Go to a bar.
2. Gather stray hairs, saliva from glasses, or whatever other organic bits you can find and place in bag. Yes, gross, I know.
3. Commit a felony and scatter the contents of said bag.
4. Watch police arrest innocents.

Alternatively, replace items 1 and 2 above with:
1/2 Obtain samples from someone you have a grudge against... some blood would be really nice.

It's not easy to plant fingerprints at the scene of a crime. What are the chances that if this becomes standard crooks will be scattering DNA at crime scenes like confetti at a wedding.

Just remember what happened recently to the Oregon lawyer who was unlucky enough to have a fingerprint fairly close to that of terrorist suspect. A false positive match put him in prison for some weeks as a "material witness" and he was only released when Spanish police made a match to another person. There was no evidence against the guy, apart from the fingerprint.

I suspect it will be much worse with a false positive (or planted) DNA.

Re:He who commits the crime...

[Jim McCoy]

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?

Genetic testing can be dangerous

[scaryfish]

Ok, first of all, those worrying about insurance companies using the database for screening for genetic diseases, or screening for people of a certain disposition, you can relax. The way this type of genetic identification works is by microsatellites - these are short nucleotide repeats that vary between individuals by the number of repeats. They are in no way related to any physical trait of the person.

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.

As someone who's been charged with a felony...

[dnahelix]

...that was later dismissed, I find this particularly disturbing.

Let me get this straight:

[asackett]

A *lawyer* wants to give *cops* more "tools" with which they can achieve a higher arrest rate, and give prosecutors a higher conviction rate?

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.