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.
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
Let's make New York City its own state. Heck throw in Long Island while you're at it.
And while we're on the subject of Patterson let me repeat what I said earlier in a story about him involving the NBC and Comcast merger.
I just don't think Governor Paterson sees the repercussions of this. Seriously he's blind to the blatant civil rights problems this will create.
The ACLU needs to give him the cane for this.
I'm sure Spitzer left quite a bit lying around.
Have gnu, will travel.
How is this supposed to clear the wrongly convicted?
If you are wrongly convicted, you wont have much issue providing your own DNA to get free.
This has only a few applications:
With current technology a matching genetic pattern can be generated. This would make a great tool for acquiring genetic patterns for the fabrication of evidence and false convictions.
Even without such fabrication, genetic evidence can be abused to implicate someone that just happened to have passed through the location of a crime days, weeks or months before the event.
The U.S. House wants to collect DNA from people merely arrested. And they'll pay the states to do 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?
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.
Crooks can just salt the scene of the crime with DNA not their own.
DNA tests are not quick, either - forget what you have seen on TV. The FBI backlog is overwhelming, as it is for State labs in most cities. DNA evidence collected at a crime scene is likely not to be analyzed before the trial date.
New York City doesn't have the money to do this, anyhow. The cost would be exorbitant, even with a balanced budget.
2013? We don't have a budget here in NY for THIS year. We're basically in a race with California to see who can shut down the gov't first.
Criminals gave up their rights when they committed a crime.
Darn right, and I've solved the budget problem as well.
I suggest parking tickets and jaywalking be the threshold for being added. Wait about 5 years, then start doing DNA tests on litter, which will have fines raised up to $250 per item.
Think about it, NYS could mass-fine millions of people a day! Dropped that cigarette butt on the ground? $250! Chewing gum? $250. Drink container that fell out of a garbage can that hasn't been picked up in a week? $250.
Heck, raise the fine to $500 and jail people who don't pay.
Obviously you are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights.
Sig this!
"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.
The collections (real-life) I've seen don't need blood. They just swab the inside of your mouth.
GP didn't ask how it was different from fingerprints. Having said that, DNA conveys information that fingerprints do not. Fingerprints can't be matched against your relatives, nor do they reveal information about a person's genetic makeup. Finally, fingerprint collection is less invasive than DNA collection, especially when DNA is obtained via needles.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
You forget the important thing: It moves with the person, and independently of the person.
Someone mentioned it's like a fingerprint. A clean fingerprint can place someone at a certain location with a high degree of accuracy.
DNA cannot do even that, except under very specific circumstances. Despite it being treated as direct evidence by law enforcement, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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.
We had this nonsense introduced in the UK, with the result that the police were arresting people to take their DNA, then releasing them without charge. But their data wasn't deleted from the database. And as the police control the whole forensic process, it's an easy matter for them, once they've got the sample, to use it to contaminate any evidence they want. Vindicating people's innocence will NOT be one of the results of this proposal.