Slashdot Mirror
NY Governor Wants To Expand DNA Database
crimeandpunishment writes "If Governor David Paterson has his way, New York would take DNA samples from even the lowest level of criminal, doubling the state's DNA database. He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted. New York would become the first state in the country to do this. Currently DNA isn't collected in most misdemeanors. The plan is getting lots of support among law enforcement, but the New York Civil Liberties Union says there are questions about privacy."
I mean shit, yes, the city of NY would like to pretend they're the whole state, but there's like, a lot more than NYC...
This space available.
If this happens, what will follow is a crackdown on jaywalking and other everybody crimes so that the database becomes universal. They'll be taking DNA at traffic stops.
It allows the law enforcement to skip the step of having to arrest you to get your DNA to test.
I don't think the important issue is whether the data is collected, but how it can be used. For example if law enforcement can try to match a sample from a crime scene against EVERY person in their database, you need a really low rate of false positives. Nationwide there are probably something like a million crimes committed each year (just guessing from the prison population). If you can match each against 300 million people in a database, that gives you 3x10^14 chances to make a mistake. We can't expect perfect justice, but even with a 1 in a 10 BILLION error rate, that is 30,000 false positives per year. Some of those will have enough other (weak) evidence to get convictions. Yet what jury wouldn't be convinced by a (true) claim that the chance of a false match is "only" one in 10 billion?
Also, once the data exists, is (should?) the government be required to check everyone in prison against DNA evidence if it exists? Personally I think this is very desirable, but it would be very expensive.
Also can the DNA evidence be used to predict tendencies to crime. This isn't practical yet, but we might in the future detect genetic markers that have correlation with types of criminal behaviour. Is it fair to say in court that the accused "has genetic markers that indicate a propensity to violence"?
The final problem is that once DNA evidence is very common use, as the poster above mentions criminals will start to plane evidence. Murder someone - plant a few hairs that you collected from someone else. Framing someone becomes much easier.
Juries need to understand that the existence of DNA evidence at a crime scene only shows that ....the person's DNA was at the crime scene - it doesn't say the person was there, or that they committed the crime.
Many of these arguments apply to various other high tech information gathering.
Just a question to naysayers: how is this different from the state wanting to know where you live, or wanting your name on record?
If I get a cut and bleed somewhere, having my name or address on file doesn't tell you I was there. Having my DNA does.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
- It uniquely identifies a person.
- It may be used against that person in the future, even if the person was innocent at the time of collection.
- It may require drawing blood. Some people are very afraid of needles and should not be forced to submit to a blood test unless the person is to stand trial for a crime where drawing blood makes legal sense (as opposed to it just being something the government thinks would be nice to have).
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The tests they do have a 99.9% success rate (if it's gone up or that was too optimistic, let me know, but that's last I saw). That means, once you collect DNA from everyone, each sample will hit on 30,000 Americans. So then, you have 30,000 people to sift through. It's good at taking a single person and comparing them against another with high reliability. But to search massive databases, you get too many hits. And then, you have to exclude 29,999 people to find the right one. Or, if you happen to be living nearby with no alibi, you may get convicted with nothing other than "your" DNA at the scene.
So it isn't just about the privacy of your DNA, but the miscarriage of justice by people that don't understand statistics and zealous police and DAs who are in the habit of creating evidence to convict someone they "know" did it (or in the case of DAs, they don't know or care who did it, but their conviction rate requires a guilty verdict and is more important than justice).
This is all just a symptom of a larger problem. The "justice" system is unrelated to justice and has become a punishment system where even those never convicted are punished in many ways (confiscation of money without any process at all, in direct violation of the Constitution, as long as they suspect that a drug user looked at it once). The government exists to serve us, and no, I don't mean serve us with warrants.
Learn to love Alaska
If police can gain an advantage by enforcing laws against minor and/or discretionary offenses, you can be sure they will take full advantage by enforcing such laws more often. It's been known to happen, and it will happen again if this abominable bill is turned into law.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Just a question to naysayers: how is this different from the state wanting to know where you live, or wanting your name on record?
Those examples are just further up the slippery slope.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
This is the reason we have the right to bare arms. My .45 will be empty before they get any samples off me.
"He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted."
uh-huh. Yeah, sure.
Investigating Officer 1: Lets review this case investigation, with impending court charges against our suspect, just so we can, you know, get him off, if we, you know, fucked up.
Investigating Officer 2: So we expose our ineptness, and corruption, and blow our case stats all at the same time?
Investigating Officer 1: Meh, Its 5pm anyhoo. Couple jars down at the local?
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people. Leaving false DNA evidence is much easier than copying someones fingerprints.
I would like to see some real-world examples.
The frame you left behind may be carrying traces of your own DNA.
Your victim now has every reason to spill the beans, expose everything he knows about your operation since the day your were expelled from My Darling Little Angels Day Care Center.
The 5th is to protect against coerced confessions. Police already have wide latitude in doing things to your body and property, so a swab of the cheek is nothing. You will be tasered and your lawsuit will fail. Due to the inconvenience to drivers, however, the government will probably respond to citizens' concerns by just requiring DNA when you get your license--driving is a privilege, not a right after all.