Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Wants DNA From All Arrestees
An anonymous reader writes in to say that "Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature. "It is good technology. It solves crimes," claims Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Under the bill, authorities would supposedly destroy samples and DNA profiles from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned. Others believe that this is just another step in the process to build a national DNA database with everyone in it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows
simply stated, if law enforcement focuses on small, petty crimes, like turnstile jumping, graffiti, and shoplifting, they implicitly reduce serious crime, like burglarly, arson, murder
the idea works in two ways:
1. the public perception of lawlessness sends a signal that even worse lawless behavior is acceptable, so doping the reverse: focusing on the surface level impression of orderliness, actually increases real orderliness
2. you would be amazed how many rapists and murders also run red lights and shoplift. that is, routine screening of petty crimes (fingerprints in the past) has actually netted a surprising number of big fish (where big fish means any criminal who committed a very serious crime). people who commit trangressive acts against society don't really seem to be able to stop doing that
in which case, viewing the request to keep and track dna, you can simply see the evolution of police work,.where the next natural next step is to track dna, as well as fingerprints, based on the success of the broken window theory in the past
i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Citation, please. I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.
There is everything wrong with a government that thinks it is entitled to take flesh - no matter how small the amount - from its citizens.
The sovereignty of the state ends at my surface of skin. That's a boundary I am willing to protect with force if necessary.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Hell, I've seen prosecutors let people sit in DETENTION for years without a trial (one famous case in my state involved a teenage girl who was held in detention for 6 years without trial, before the prosecutor admitted he had no case and she was released). Sometimes a person is arrested and never gets an actual trial (whether they're held in detention or released).
We need much, much stronger laws to deal with prosecutors who commit unjust acts. If you are unjustly kidnapped and held in a cell for years, it doesn't matter to you whether your captor is the state or a psychotic madman. Both are equally traumatic, and both aggressors should be punished as harshly.
I heard a story on NPR this morning about a black man who was falsely accused of rape and died in prison. The real rapist sent letters to the prosecutors admitting to the rape. Not one of the prosecutors responded to those letters. By any reasonable code of justice, every one of those prosecutors would be guilty of a crime. IMO, a crime much worse than rape.
I don't know how to do it though. You're never going to get a prosecutor to prosecute another prosecutor for prosecuting.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Here's how I see it playing out:
Step 1: They pass this law. Perhaps they "forget" to destroy the DNA samples. Perhaps they do destroy it.
Step 2: They complain about the "destruction" requirement impeding law enforcement. A high profile case is brought up where keeping the DNA evidence would have helped solve the case quicker. (Bonus points if they can claim a life would have been saved.)
Step 3: The law will be amended to allow police to keep the samples for as long as they deem it needed.
It seems to be a popular method of getting 1984-style laws passed. Pass an innocuous sounding law backed by a rallying cry ("Think of the Children!" "Protect against Terrorism!"). Now, expand that law as quietly as possible until it matches your original intent.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If you disagree with recording DNA there's no reason why recording fingerprints before conviction should be acceptable either.
I think that's taking it a little far. There are sometimes very good reasons to take prints/DNA. If you're accused of a crime and you claim that you've never been to the scene, prints or DNA could potentially (in)validate your story and effect your conviction/release.
However, if you're caught shoplifting or even if you're accused of something more serious and admit your guilt openly, I see no reason why either should need to be taken.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I think it is Unreasonable Search for both. That it is easy to do is half of the problem. If anyone walked up to you and said 'Let me examine your hand with this magnifying glass and these chemicals' you would think them insane. My fingerprints and my DNA are my own thank you. They are part of what makes me ME. You have no right to part of me upon accusation. Conviction maybe, but not upon accusation.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
An organization to which I belong sponsors something called "CHIP" (Child Identification Program). Parents bring their children to be fingerprinted, have a DNA (saliva) sample taken, and a short video interview (all for no cost to them). All materials are sealed in a box and given to the parents, to be kept in case the child goes missing - then they can be given to the police. Apparently, it's made a difference a few times.
(don't take this as any kind of opinion on how frequent children go missing, or whether the article's DNA sampling is desirable)
What about speeding?
What about when the police detain you for no good reason other than they suspect you of doing something wrong? It's happened.
...to the UK.
We've been doing this for years. Funny to think my genetic fingerprint is stored in a DB somewhere.
I've always thought, doesn't this constant databasing of our personal details fall under the Data Protection Act's remit? Surely I should be able to A) Request a copy of everything they have on me B) Have it removed on request.
IANAL but I work on the assumption that nobody's above the law, and that conflicting laws are deemed unenforacable when they get shot down in court. Have I got it wrong?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.