Slashdot Mirror
DNA Testing Proposed For All Felony Arrests In New Mexico
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The AP reports that a proposal to expand DNA testing to anyone arrested for a felony in New Mexico has passed the state House, expanding a 2006 state law requiring DNA samples of those arrested of certain violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping and sex offenses. 'We must give law enforcement the best possible tools to prevent crime and convict criminals, and requiring DNA samples from those arrested for felonies is simply the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting,' says Governor Susana Martinez. Under the measure, already enacted in a dozen states, suspects 18 and older will have to provide DNA samples — from a cheek swab, for example — when they're booked at jails for any felony, as supporters says the expanded testing can help prevent crimes. But opponents contend the testing violates a person's right to privacy and could cause police to make arrests on a pretext to obtain a DNA sample."
If that were all, you'd be fine limiting this sampling to convicts instead of every arrested suspect.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
But I'd be all in for required DNA for felony convictions. Sounds like with them trying to get this under the guise of "it's like a fingerprint" they are fishing for other crimes that can be attached to the arrestee. I'd be interested to see some data regarding the number of felony arrests vs the number of felony convictions in that state.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
An arrest just an accusation, not a conviction. Until it is proven that a person has committed a crime, the state has no right to obtain such data. Hell, even fingerprints should be withheld until it is proven that a person has committed a crime. That or, at the very least, all fingerprints and other personal identifying information should be removed from government control upon charges being dropped or when a person is found not guilty.
It seems that government is looking to creep further and further into people's bodies without just cause. The founder of the United States would be extremely angry at what this great nation has become.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not any of us have anything to hide. It is government's responsibility, within the United States, to prove anything wrong has occurred; it is not a citizen's responsibility to prove their innocence. Such a stance of "if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with this" is just a euphemism for "prove you are innocent".
The legislation will expand what's called "Katie's Law" in memory of Kathryn Sepich, a New Mexico State University student who was raped and murdered in 2003. Sepich's killer was identified more than three years later with DNA evidence after he was CONVICTED of another crime.
So why swab someone who has only been arrested?
"If we can start by matching these CRIMINALS up to their previous crimes..." --Rep. Al Park
Wow. So this is what due process has come to. Arrest = criminal. I'd like to take a jab at New Mexico but DNA testing at arrest is a nationwide effort.
I think that any arrest that doesn't lead to charges being filed (and not dropped) should require financial compensation, and any criminal trial in which the charges do not meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence (the standard used in civil cases) should require a hell of a lot more financial compensation.
There should be a serious disincentive for the police to arrest people without cause.
Interesting question. Let's assume a theoretical person "I". "I" am "pre-emptively arrested" for a felony in order to get a DNA sample, but that specific arrest itself is later to have been found to be without reasonable cause, AKA it was a fishing expedition. Let's also assume that "I" have other warrants or am a suspect in crimes where there is an existing DNA sample. Mostly these would be sexual crimes, assaults, and murder related, that is, I don't think that police departments are DNA swabbing every known crime scene (burglaries, car thefts, etc.). In this scenario, the tainted match results in the possibility of a conviction for an unrelated issue. The false arrest is a legal taint -- the police aren't allowed to do it -- and so any evidence recovered in this manner would become unusable in BOTH cases.
As opposed to "I am brought in for questioning", offered a drink of water, a cigarette, or WHATEVER as a ruse for the police to get a DNA sample, a fingerprint, etc. -- tactics that have been held to be legal in many many court cases. Why would I as a police department risk the inevitable lawsuit and serious legal expense, or the loss of a predator/violent criminal/murderous type with an arrest when I can do something much cheaper to get the DNA sample I need?
I think the bigger "security vs. freedom" issue would be along the lines of "we got a DNA sample on file for you and we can keep it and share it with anyone we want for whatever reason and you will never know who/how/why it was shared". Because we trust governments SO much to only do the right things with our personal information, to never allow their databases to be sold, shared, hacked, etc., right?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
What guarantee do we have that the samples will be destroyed and the database records will be deleted if the suspect is found not guilty or the charges are dropped?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
While you certainly lose liberties from being incarcerated, you should never lose rights. Even if you are arrested, you still have:
The right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment (first and foremost in this situation)
The right to entertain whatever religion you like
The right to a trial if you are accused of another crime
Etc
Some places will remove a person's rights upon conviction, like right to vote, but that is an enormous mistake. First of all, if there are enough felony convictions to influence votes, then we have a bigger problem. Second, it sets the precedent for other rights being removed. Third, no one should ever have their vote removed even if they committed a crime: there actually are bad laws, and the people most affected by them should have the most right to vote against their supporters.
Why? If you are arrested, they already have your fingerprints. If you are exonerated, they still keep your fingerprints on file.
And they should be deleted too.
You appear to be saying 'because the police do this bad thing, we should let them do other bad things too'. Taking DNA on arrest is now standard practice in the UK and even though the EU has told them they must delete it if the suspect turns out to be innocent, they've taken two years and a change of government to start to delete some. It's just another attempt to create a big police state database.
If the Government takes a DNA sample, they should be required to run it through 23andMe and give you the results for free. That would provide some benefit. The "criminal" DNA matching systems are far cruder than the 100,000 point analysis 23andMe does.
No. And that gives reason for us not to trust them with DNA.
So, upon ARREST (not conviction), the state can do anything like like to you? I guess that's fair, considering the government can now sexually assault you for the crime of buying an airline ticket.
We are living in a country where citizens rights have evaporated, so you can be "safe". My question is: Safe from what? I now fear the authorities more than any terrorist or criminal - because it's more likely that THEY will assault me at some point, violate what little rights I have left, and maybe even accidentally torture, maim, or kill me.
These days you can be tazed for speaking out at a public hearing, or beaten to death for crossing the street. I suspect it's only a matter of time before arrest == PMITA prison time before any kind of trial, just to get you "warmed up" for your new life as a criminal.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
In Britain there was a case where the jury actually received instruction on Bayes' theorem and the correct statistical techniques for interpreting DNA evidence, instead of relying on gut notions and misunderstandings of how DNA matching works. When the judge discovered the jury had been given this knowledge, he threw the case out the window. Maybe someone else remembers more details. I just read this in a book.
I've heard of a similar case in the U.S., but in that case the important detail you are missing was that the statistical instruction came from one of the members of the jury, who was a statistician (or maybe microbiologist - I don't remember). The information he provided to the other jurors was correct, but the fact that the information was presented without the chance for cross examination was the sticking point. This information should have been provided by an expert witness during the trial - if it wasn't, then the defense (or prosecutor, depending on which way it goes I suppose) screwed up. Just because I'm an expert in something, doesn't mean I get to use that expertise to provide new information to the jury outside the court room - even if I'm right (and if it isn't presented in court, who will challenge it if I'm wrong?). It should, properly, be part of discovery - giving both sides a chance to review the information, ask questions, and present counter witnesses if necessary.
I'm from New Mexico, and I'm wondering where our fearless new leader left her fiery campaign promises about the budget.
So far her big accomplishments have been:
To dissolve environmental regulations to the best of her abilities (to pay back her big energy campaign donors, even if her methods were possibly illegal)
Try to institute a very expensive overhaul of our drivers' licenses (because despite being named Martinez she seems to hate brown people enough that it clouds her judgement. Illegal immigrants get licenses for a very simple reason here: so they can get insurance -- so that the rest of us don't pay absurd[er] premiums.)
After campaigning on a promise to balance the budget without cutting education say "oh, never mind, we might have to cut education" within a week of being elected.
Now she's instituting this? I can't imagine it'll be cheap either.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans talk a big talk on fiscal responsibility, but can't walk the walk unless it's going to help them shit on the heads of poor people. All promises of fiscal responsibility also go right out the window when it comes to chances to edge closer to a police state or go to war.
Porquoi?