What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?

NevDull writes "As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft from corporate databases, imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as a suspect in a crime, being vindicated by that sample, and never even being told why you were suspected. This article discusses a man, Roger Valadez, who's fighting both to have his DNA sample and its profile purged from government records, and to find out why he and his DNA were searched in the BTK case. DA Nola Foulston said, 'I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.' -- convenient as she wasn't the one probed without explanation. The article then mentions that 'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.' What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"

Comments

Re:Nothing to Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the congress pulls and late nighter and the president flies back to the capital to quickly sign a bill allowing the government to barge past states rights and personal descisions it's discomforting.

I guess you're all upset about State's rights in 70's when the Feds struck down numerous states "rights" to restrict abortion.

As to Teri Shivo-- I suggest you do some more research before you shoot off the typical liberal(lazy) anti-Bush stuff. Something ain't right with her (estranged) husband, since in his malpractice lawsuit (netted him 1.2mil after lawyers) he was going to take care of her for the rest of her natural life. Once the check comes (7 years after the incident)-- he "remembers" that she wanted to die, halts all rehabilitive treatment (which, by the way, saves him money). And he cared so much for her that 3 years after her "accident", he's living with a commonlaw (wife) and punches out 3 kids. Suspicion cirles around the circumstances of her brain injury, and he wants immediate cremation after she's "put down". Yeah-- sounds like a clear case of a loving husband carrying out his wife's wishes to me!

Re:This will never fly

[winkydink]

I didn't know Canada adhered to the US Constitution, which was what was quoted in the article that I replied to. Try to stay focused here.

Re:Been doing it for awhile

[imsabbel]

You know, atomic bombs have never been used by civilians for any crimes, so lets put the plutonium in th shelf at walmart.
Because its stupid banning something that never has hurt anyone, yes?

Re:Nothing to Fear

[Kombat]

A lot of negative attention would have been heaped on any juror that wanted to find Peterson "not guilty." The social demands and pressure are overwhelming.

Are you suggesting that the jurors felt pressured to convict by society and the media? Please explain how this is possible when the jurors were sequestered for the entire duration of the trial, and had no exposure to any outside media or people at all until after their verdict was already rendered.

The jury had no idea what people outside the courtroom thought of the case, or if anyone outside of the town was even paying attention to this yet-another-murder-trial. As far as they knew, nobody cared whether they convicted or not, other than the prosecution and the defense.

Mankey Wanker, you sure say a lot of stupid things.