Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Governor Wants To Expand DNA Database

Posted by samzenpus on from the leave-your-swab-at-the-door dept.

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."

3 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. DNA is a double edged sword by Nichotin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While there are some very clear benefits of using DNA as evidence in some cases, it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people. Leaving false DNA evidence is much easier than copying someones fingerprints. A couple of kilos of cocaine planted in someones apartment, with a piece of hair, can in some jurisdictions land people in jail for a long time. It is somewhat the same dillemma with electronic evidence. Some real criminals are caught using historic location data or credit card date. At the same time, if you are well aware that this sort of evidence is taken seriously, you can also use it to create your own alibis which can make investigators rule you out as a suspect in the first place.

    This is just a concern regarding the part about "He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted.", because I think someone might be wrongly convicted BECAUSE of the new use of DNA evidence. I don't really like the idea that you should collect DNA because of small crime in the first place, and even though there might be some benefits, this certainly weighs against (even though some might be found innocent).

    --
    Dvorak on Doomtech
    1. Re:DNA is a double edged sword by Compholio · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While there are some very clear benefits of using DNA as evidence in some cases, it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people.

      Yeah, just wait until the crooks catch up and start using DNA synthesis to frame people without even having access to their DNA (or just sufficiently contaminating a crime scene to make DNA evidence useless). You may not be able to recreate someone's entire DNA, but you can recreate enough of it to fool the "fingerprint" in the database.

  2. Right to remain silent by somenickname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I have the right to remain silent, do I also have the right to refuse giving my DNA away? IANAL but if I have the right to not speak so as to not incriminate myself, why wouldn't I also have the right to not have my blood drawn (or mucus swabbed) so as to not incriminate myself?

    I don't live in New York but, I'm often there. If an officer there wanted to take a sample of my DNA for an offense such as speeding, I'd refuse. If he persisted, I'd try to invoke Miranda Rights. If he persisted after that, I'd fight back as he tried to take the sample, recover for a few months in the hospital after he beat me senseless and then sue for police brutality. Essentially, that's what it's going to take to get this law overturned if it gets passed.