Slashdot Mirror
New York State Passes DNA Requirement For Almost All Convicted Criminals
New submitter greatgreygreengreasy writes "According to NPR, 'Lawmakers in New York approved a bill that will make the state the first to require DNA samples from almost all convicted criminals. Most states, including New York, already collect DNA samples from felons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. What's remarkable about the New York bill is that it would expand the state's database to include DNA from people convicted of almost any crime, even misdemeanors as minor as jumping over a subway turnstile.' Gattaca seems closer than we may have thought. Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
Who is making money from this?
1. Pay to have your DNA sequenced.
2. Copyright your DNA sequence.
3. Get arrested, convicted and have your DNA taken.
4. Sue like your the MPAA.
5. Profit?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Is this for white collar criminals too? Oh wait, the rich don't go to jail, they just make settlements.
I just don't get the fearmongering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I refuse to believe this is is constitutional. A policing body taking my genetic code and doing god know what with it if I jay walk or look at a cop wrong? Lets see how this silly piece of paper hold up in court.
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
and violent criminals also begin their lives by conducting in law abiding behavior, like drinking water. If we can catch law abiders early we can catch them before they turn into criminals.
I guess the economy must be booming with all these extra taxes that will fund this. Or they will just charge the accused for the "privilege" of using the justice system, and the debts will be collected when the accused borrows from their family or goes into the correctional system to "pay their debt" to society.
So this applies to basically every person who voted for the law...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Having a DNA of the most violent people in your database is the best way to conquer the world!
DNA testing has been shown to be basically unreliable.
Fingerprints are actually *more* reliable.
Sounds great, huh.
...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed a crime?
As usual for an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights, the UK got there first. In England, you get your DNA taken and stored simply if you get arrested - you don't even need to be charged, let alone convicted.
from the middle ages --- horrifyingly worried about someone getting control over them 'cause they lost a bit of hair or a fingernail clipping or a bit of blood.
Most violent criminals have their beginnings as a crying baby. Ergo, we should collect DNA from all crying babies. This will allow our helpful government to keep us safe. I'm way more concerned about turnstile jumpers than our government collecting a little DNA.
DNA fingerprinting techniques 'can sometimes give the wrong results'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1302156/DNA-fingerprinting-wrong-results.html#ixzz1pINb0FPk
DNA's dirty little secret: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html
Typically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
I'm curious how many people who are generally considered to be law-abiding citizens have a misdemeanor at some point in their past which did not lead to later felonies. I'd really like to see that number, becaue I bet it would dwarf the amount of people who escalated their criminal activity to felonies later in life. How many criminals do you have to apprehend using these new samples to justify getting samples for all of those law-abiding folks?
For really violent criminals (that sign an agreement) they could make slave clones. Kind of like "The Island" but using the other end of the social spectrum.
I wouldn't mind them taking convicted criminal's DNA, but only if they start with all elected officials.
There really is no real reason not to do DNA analysis on every child born in the US. The medical research potential is unfathomable.
Do you know why it's not done? Because it's a very accurate and irrefutable test of paternity. Wait, that's a good thing, right? Don't we want an accurate record of who the father is? It makes sense for a whole lot of reasons.
There's a fact that polite society is not ready to accept, and that is that the amount of children that have the wrong father listed on their birth certificate is high.. Very high. Something on the order of 10-15% Infidelity is is a lot more common than people want to admit.
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.' Did anybody ever look at all then nonviolent "criminals" (people who jaywalk, ride the subway without paying etc...) DON'T become violent? I think they would find out it is the great majority.
There's nothing unreliable about DNA testing. They even employ controls to rule out laboratory contamination.
A pseudoscientific method is not more reliable. They don't employ any controls in fingerprint analysis at all. No one who knows anything about this thinks fingerprints are more reliable in DNA. The difference is that with DNA they've taken steps to determine how reliable it is. With fingerprints, they haven't.
When you take away everything, you have nothing to lose! And someone with nothing to lose is the most dangerous thing in the world!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Having a DNA of the most violent people in your database is the best way to conquer the world!
Not really. Good soldiers tend to have good self discipline and good judgement. Two characteristics that probably do not correlate well with violent criminals.
More importantly they already have the DNA of violent felons. The who point of the fine article is that they are now going to collect the DNA of non-violent minor criminals.
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
We also know that violent criminals very often start their lives as children. The earlier we get every child's DNA into a data bank the higher our chances of living in a crime free paradise.
If you're from Quebec, good riddance. If you're from anywhere else in Canada, we'll miss you.
A study I completed recently found that a staggering 100% of criminals start out as non-criminals. If we can get non-criminal's DNA in the data bank, our chances of apprehending criminals will rise dramatically.
Death penalty for parking tickets!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Why are you thinking about being a Criminal inside the United States? If so you can stay in Canada we don't want you.
Sarcasm aside...
Having your DNA on record isn't much different then getting your fingerprints taken, which will happen if you get arrested too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"as non-violent criminals"
So that anti-piracy ad is correct? If I download a movie or buy bootleg DVDs from China, I'll eventually turn to hard drugs and killing? Wow. (That was sarcasm; the NY guy's statement is bull and backed-up with no facts.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
So instead of working with non-violent offenders to identify and address the causes of crime, we are just going to kick them around some more under the assumption that if you jump a turnstile you are a worthless human destined to rape and murder; it's just a matter of time.
I can see how apprehending the right person is the solution to the crime problem. Bravo.
They should put the DNA of all politicians, lobbyists, and investment bankers into the database first.
One thing I'm worried about is the moment when the owner of these DNA databases figures out that they can start selling the information to stakeholders like drug companies. What rights do even felons have to ensure this sort of thing never happens?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
What's going to happen is a near-future supervillan will gain access to all criminal DNA and clone a new race of super criminals. And I, for one, welcome our new DNA cloned, super felon overlords.
DNA testing has been shown to be basically unreliable. Fingerprints are actually *more* reliable. Sounds great, huh.
I think you need a citation from a credible source on that one? Are you perhaps thinking of the fact that there are different types of DNA tests with different levels of specificity? The less accurate tests are used more commonly for a first round of testing, not unlike blood types, to exclude a suspect. When trying to uniquely identify an individual the more accurate, and more expensive, tests are used.
I find it funny that New York State on the one hand says it is ok for them to keep your genomic information and yet don't trust you to get your own sequenced. From Wikipedia:
In April 2008, New York State's Department of Health sent warning letters to six online genetic testing companies, including 23andMe, notifying them that they cannot offer New York state residents genetic tests without a permit nor can they offer them without authorization from a physician.
I think the NYSDOH should Cease and Desist their own government, I always love seeing bureaucrats at each other, distracts them from messing things up.
Imagine, 5000 years from now, archeologists dig up a hard drive with this info. They realize what the data is, but not who it is from. They unknowingly begin to clone our most violent felons, wreaking havoc on world.
Do you really need to ask why people are opposed to further increases in police power?
Palm trees and 8
Fingerprinting has never been subject to a peer reviewed study for accuracy. It is just accepted that they are close enough to unique to work. In general, "forensic science" isn't science.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So if my DNA is better than others, does that mean I'm worth more? Do I get better luck with the ladies?
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Can't wait till the Anon script-kiddies do an SQL-injection on THAT gov database and they post all our DNA's to the twitters. Crap.
Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
So when some senator discovers that youth who question authority are more likely to be delinquent, what then? Cotton swab for every child that talks back in class? Hair sample from any child that throws a tantrum at daycare.
It's an undeniable fact that a comprensive DNA database of the citizenship would help police do their job. Obviously that's not the only consideration; if it were, why not give the cops unlimited power?
The powers we give the police, like the power we give to anybody, should be meted out carefully with an eye to balancing the pros and cons. We should be asking ourselves: why are we considering more power for police? Crime has been trending down for decades. If anything, striking a better balance now would mean revoking powers, not adding to them.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
We also know that nonviolent criminals begin their careers as noncriminals. Why not just require DNA samples from everyone?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
... begin their careers as non-violent criminals, so let's test all the non-violent criminals. Oh, hey, violent criminals also start life as completely innocent. So we really should test all citizens!
When police finally had a lead on the BTK serial killer they obtained a sample of a relative's DNA because they didn't have enough evidence to get sample of his. I assume that will become one of the primary uses of New York's database.
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
One of the little factoids that many people don't know--over 90% of all first-time criminals have never committed a crime before. That's why we need to get all the innocent people's DNA into a data bank--so we can increase the chances of apprehending the right person.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
"We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers after being born. And the earlier you can get a person's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person." - an idiot
And we haven't even begun to imagine the future abuses. People with gene abnormality ... are 0.001% more likely to become a violent criminal, we should start investigating them at birth. Heck maybe we'll tattoo some sort of symbol on their forehead to warn everyone, that's better than putting it on their clothes they could change those.
Don't worry. If you break US law, I'm sure Canada will be happy to extradite you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I refuse to believe this is is constitutional. A policing body taking my genetic code and doing god know what with it if I jay walk or look at a cop wrong? Lets see how this silly piece of paper hold up in court.
Criminal convictions are all about reducing your rights, and your anonymity, from that point in time forward. If they can retain info like photos of your face, tattoos, scars and other distinguishing physical features; biological information like height, weight, fingerprints, blood type, medical conditions, etc ... then how is retaining info on your DNA something new and unprecedented? I'm a bit fuzzy on what is unconstitutional. Creepy yes, unconstitutional probably not.
I'd collect a lot of random DNA beforehand and contaminate the crime scene.
Oh it's much worse than that.
I have conclusive evidence that 100% of Violet criminal, and 100% of repeat Violet offenders including 100% of sex offenders AND terrorists began their criminal careers as SUB-CRIMINALS. What is a sub-criminal (or SUBCRIM)? A subcrim is someone who thinks about committing a crime.
Now, we are not at the stage of technological development where we can scan the thoughts of everyone to weed out the subcrims, but we can take everyone's DNA just in case. When we have 100% of the DNA in the country then we can easily weed out everyone who did not commit a crime. No more unsolved cases. No more criminals walking the streets. No more innocent people rotting in jail.
Stamp out child abuse and terrorism in our time! Ask your legislator to pass the ANIT-SUBCRIM legislation now! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! REMEMBER 911!
There's nothing wrong with collecting data on convicted felons and convicted criminals.
There are thousands of laws that do worse things to completely innocent people.
So let's suppose you have a family with a checkered past. You have never been convicted of anything. However one day a partial match comes through and lo and behold, your father's DNA doesn't quite match, but they suspect a family member. Can they compel you to submit to a DNA test?
Hasn't your father 's DNA just convicted you?
In other words, old DNA evidence might be used on a fishing expedition to convict family members as well. Is that reasonable? I'm not so sure about that.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Someday, the system may have the power to force absolute conformity upon all its people. Of course, this results in civil harmony but ends innovation and adaptation, which exhausts civilization, which ends humanity. Earth returns to its 'natural' state until the sun goes supernova and incinerates the planet. And now for the bad news . . .
From the point of view of the rich and powerful:
Convicted criminals have few rights before or after they're imprisoned. In particular felons lose the right to vote.
We won't be convicted of felonies. Our political donations, private police, security guards, well-paid lawyers and contacts prevent it.
The more people we can define as felons the fewer voters we need to worry about and the more power we have. case in point: the marijuana lobby that never was.
The more power the police have the better off we are.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Does that Apply to Bankers? Is this for white collar criminals too? Oh wait, the rich don't go to jail, they just make settlements.
And friends of the President don't even get prosecuted. ... one of the best colleagues I had in the Senate and one of the best partners I have in the White House.”
“Jon Corzine
President Barack Obama, Oct 21, 2009.”
There's nothing unreliable about DNA testing. They even employ controls to rule out laboratory contamination.
Of course, these controls are perfect:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17324912
Note that while this guy was not convicted:
a/ His life was seriously fucked up
b/ The police only queried the test when he repeatedly insisted he had never been to Manchester, where the crime was committed. If he *had* been (innocently) to Manchester at around the 'right' time this would not have occurred.
c/ The lab initially denied there were any issues and insisted the match was correct, and the police proceeded to charge him based on this denial.
d/ the lab *later* confessed to the contamination
If it was not for d/, he would probably be banged up now, because the Jury know that "DNA is 100% reliable".
He was *incredibly* lucky that the lab confessed - they could easily have covered this up, and I believe most organizations would do just that and see an innocent man jailed rather than risk losing lucrative police work.
Also note they are now investigating to see if the same thing has already happened in previous cases and led to false convictions.
ALL DNA testing laws should at the very least require that the crime scene DNA is tested at a seperate lab to the samples taken from possible perpetrators. But that won't happen because it costs money, which outweighs justice any day (certainly in the UK at present).
Gattaca was about judgment of individuals, less about collection for comparison. The surveillance was there, true, but not quite in the same way.
Note I am not endorsing the system of Gattaca.
We know that dictotorships grow from politicians. Therefore, to stop future dictators-in-the-making, we must place a restraining bolt through every politician's neck.
I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill that expands the requirements to every state employee who has to get the standard DOJ/FBI background security check that requires fingerprints.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to direct the very same concerns that concluded with this bill at the security screening process for state government employees as part of an enhanced standard background check. Do that, and it would go a long way toward addressing my concerns with this bill.
Privacy issues notwithstanding, I happen to agree that there are mainly legitimate, beneficial uses for tracking DNA just as we do fingerprints. Once the governor, AG, cops, etc are all in the system, I believe they will have a much more of a vested interest in those very same privacy concerns.
If you do not commit a crime, you should not get arrested and DNA profiled...
Sarcasm, right?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
One of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent noncriminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent noncriminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'
Because, of course, the police are all heroes and never make mistakes, or have prejudices, blind spots or abuse power.
How is the government knowing your DNA sequencing a violation of privacy? Can it be used to get into you bank account? How about tracking your current location or what you might do with your free time? As far as I can figure the only thing any government can do with your DNA sequence is use it to compare against other DNA sequences. I would appreciate it if someone could give me an example of how DNA could be used for violating privacy.
If there is no God then free will is an illusion.
Anything against people from Quebec? You know, it's not because some separatists hate the US and all the English speaking people that we are all like that.
Here in Kalifornia...They collect DNA just for getting arrested for a Felony, irrespective if it gets instantly dropped at the preliminary hearing, because the charges are totally made up BS. No conviction required. Personal experience here, it's the real deal
Step out of line with the powers that be? Well, look at that! Your DNA just showed up at the scene of an unspeakable crime! What are the odds?
You're supposed to warn us with "Spoiler Alert'!
Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.
By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".
Dilbert RSS feed
Fingerprints can identify you.
DNA can identify you, your parents, your children and other family members.
DNA can show your genetic odds for diseases like diabetes or alcoholism.
Once your DNA is in the public record:
- Your health insurance rates might go way up because you have good odds of diabetes.
- Your car insurance rates might go up because you fit the DNA profile of a drunk, even if you don't drink.
And what do you do if you happen to be an identical twin, triplet, etc, whose sibling committed the crime?
Even if your DNA was never taken, it may suddenly be difficult to get certain jobs because now employer background checks might run a DNA scan on public databases and find out you have a relative convicted of fraud. (I might feel better about this if DNA-based background checks were required to be a candidate in an election.)
We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals.
Violent criminals also very often begin life as babies. Therefore babies should be treated as criminals because - the earlier you get them into the database the "safer" we all are.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
With a large database of DNA (approaching 100% coverage of the U.S. population if things continue as the are), it's too easy for police to take the easy route and just find a bit of DNA, match it to the database, and declare the case solved and present it to the DA. The DA then proceeds as...
Perhaps juries will catch on, but I fear not. (My experiences as a juror makes me question the system -- the only "civic duty" that people do in the US that they are less qualified for than Jury Duty is Voting).
For myself as a juror, the existence of a DNA match without other very strong evidence means little -- but then I have a pretty high bar for "beyond reasonable doubt". Good, very well situated, DNA evidence might help take me from "most likely guilty" to "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", but that's about it.
>>And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
And the earlier we get every newborn's DNS into the data bank, the higher you chances of apprehending the right person.
In 20 years or so (if I'm that lucky) I'll be off this planet and done with this shit.
"We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.' Holy crap? That's the logic behind this? Well i have lots of data that non-violent criminals "very often" begin their careers as non-criminals. So I guess we should friggin DNA everyone.
Someone's been to the Limpopo River...
'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
We also know that almost all, if not all, violent criminals begin their life as babies. So the earlier you can get a baby's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.
This is more like the sci-fi/fantasy series CSI where they have almost everyone's DNA profile stored, and enough excess processing power, energy and bandwidth to display live data on each person as the search is running. Also they have the magical ability to infinitely zoom up and "enhance" even the graniest images, that's the fantasy part.
However they're quite inept with computers in this world. In one episode they took a laptop from a defense contractor, and instead of storing it in a faraday bag and then imaging the hard drive with a data diode adapter in a shielded room, they just booted it up with free network access, and then acted surprised - REALLY surprised, they were freaking out - when it remote wiped itself. It was quite funny.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And the earlier you can get everyone's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending someone.
The question here, of course, is whether or not a human being owns their own body.
The answer to which is (equally as obvious): No.
You do not own your body, the State does. And it can do whatever it damned-well pleases with it, when it pleases, and how. Should you fail to recognize this in the course of your dealings with the State, I'm sure they can show you just how incredibly wrong you are.
Examples? See the whole of the internet.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
It was the usual mission creep. Initially they stressed that the DNA database was only for serious offences such as rape. Yet within a few years they were keeping the DNA of arrested protesters even if no charges were brought. This is why you have to defend against the initial small moves that encroach upon your freedoms. If you don't make a stand initially, mission creep will get you.
If you want to convince the average person to take privacy serious, NEVER use an example where you are worried a guilty person might be convicted for a crime he did in fact commit Only utter nutters think that law and order is some kind of game, that must be played "fair" with the odds in favor of the criminal. The rest of us think that guilty people should be punished. So, try again, what does an INNOCENT person have to worry about all this? He very well might, but it is the innocent person carry about. Not your guilty ass.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Richard Aborn is such a wimp. The answer is staring him in the face and he just doesn't get it. Point is, there is one and only one source of all known criminals, and that's the only people that need to have their DNA collected. Duh! Get those samples right away and problem solved. The one and only source of all known criminals is all the non-criminals. Known criminals we can keep an eye on, but all those others, they are the ones who are scary, because you never know....
We can start with Aborn, with the only hiccup we probably face, as I read his character, is that he already is a criminal and so we better first check if he is already on file, so as not to waste taxpayer's money.
I had to sign up for the Selective Service (i.e. draft, if it were ever to come to that) even though I didn't want to.
How is imply *having* your DNA, to compare to at crime scenes, an invasion of privacy? (If it is, why isn't taking a fingerprint too? IIRC, you have to give fingerprints for a driver's license.)
Think of how many more murderers would be caught if a DNA sample were required for a social security number, for example.
Nothing?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
http://www.darwinawards.com/science/forensic_analysis.html
that didn't take me long to find.
And the most damning, from a university:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/labs/gel/forensics/
Law and order isn't a game, but it is stacked in favor of the accused. Hence the phrases "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". It damn well better be substantially harder to convict someone than for them to show a reasonable doubt about it, because otherwise you create a society in which people can just be thrown in prison. That's getting increasingly easy to do, but in most cases there's still a court involved, and they do still care about things like evidence procedures and presumption of innocence.
I don't care that the guy gets off, if the police were sloppy. Even if he's a murderer and everybody knows it. The police need to do their job right, because if they're allowed to get away with illegal searches and still get the conviction, we're all at risk.
I'm not even some paranoid libertarian, but this is pretty basic justice.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
If I went to jail for buying bootlegs, I would probably turn to hard drugs and murder.
Seriously.
I'd be unemployable as a convicted pirate, wouldn't pass background checks, my credit would go to shit without a job to pay off debts, I'd default on the mortgage/car payment sooner or later...
So yeah, on getting out... I imagine I'd end up trying to deal to earn enough to survive (you have to work about 140 hours at minimum wage to earn typical rent in this region), and kill anyone that threatened to make things worse.
Laws create criminals. Not society.
This is nonsense. There is no piece of evidence that should be sufficient to convict someone on its own. That doesn't make such evidence "unreliable."
There is no kind of evidence which infallible. But the way DNA evidence is analyzed makes it more reliable than other kinds. The reason you can find stories like that are the scientific controls used. The reason that it doesn't come up for fringerprints or other types of evidence is they lack controls entirely.
the tooth-fairy has your DNA, -: it's not original, but I enjoyed the concept. (Terry Pratchett?)
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Back in 2004, 62% of voters in CA passed Prop 69 which required taking DNA upon charge of any adult or juvenile with any felony and also listed crimes. A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Prop 69 last month saying plaintiffs failed to articulate how it's any different from fingerprints or mugshots.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_69,_Required_Collection_of_DNA_Samples_from_Felons_(2004)
http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2012/02/27/ninth-circuit-issues-long-awaited-ruling-on-constitutionality-of-dna-fingerprinting/
I get the creepiness factor, DNA is an unimaginably detailed description of a person. However I don't really see any *new* legal issues that have not already been addressed by the courts. I'm sure the collection and retention of fingerprints generated a bunch of lawsuits back in the day. How is the current legislation authorizing the collection and retention of DNA at conviction any different than the old legislation that authorized the collection of fingerprints at the time of arrest and the retention of fingerprints at the time of conviction?
Fingerprints of the convicted, maybe even those of the merely arrested, are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes. Fingerprints are searched by computer, a search done on all fingerprints on file. Fingerprints don't seem to raise self incrimination issues.
The only new issue that I can think of is that law enforcement databases with DNA information may need to be Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant with respect to securing and restricting access to DNA information. Personally I hope this is a non-issue, that law enforcement databases are already at least as secure as those belonging to those involving health care.
People become these hard core criminals because of the states obsession with turning every tiny little crime into big one (you make a couple mistakes your labelled a crim, it's harder to get jobs, and the cops are even more interested in you). Back off the teenagers smoking a bit pot or jumping over a railway station gate, get the cops to treat them with a little respect, and i'm pretty sure your problem will go away. Wise up your not solving anything, your only making it worse.
Rocket Surgeon.
I might feel that way if I believed that I could absolutely trust every police officer. While I have not had any run-ins personally I know that it would be all too easy for a policeman to "find" some drugs in my car or on my body and completely fuck up my life. As such I'm not convinced they need any more power.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
We also know that non-violent criminals all start out as non-criminals. Next step, NY takes DNA samples of everyone.
They use our taxes to build chains for us.
The problem is that it's presented to juries as if it were sufficient to convict someone on its own.
So which would it be ....would you grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license to copy your DNA? What about derivitive works .... do you get any royalties from that?
Anywhere they want. The government you have today might not be the kind you have tomorrow.
"We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"
Where's the probable cause? Oh, hell, let's just forget that whole 4th Amendment thing. It's inconvenient.
Lots of people start out using fake ID to enter a bar and later escalate to becoming a college graduate, a parent, and a productive member of society.
(Yes, you can be all three!)
In other news, we need DNA from all politicians. 100% of all public corruption cases -- a serious crime that strikes at the heart of democracy -- involve them. And the earlier you can get a political criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person. Violent politicians very often begin their careers as nonviolent politicians. Don't let them exempt themselves like they did with the Do-Not-Call list!
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
So you are going to use this new system to frame any convict, to save your ass from the shit stain media?
Yes cause every hard criminal did silly shit before making the leap of faith jump to murder.. These people are idiots, even they forgot or never experienced being a teenager. And people vote for these morons, or they buy there way in, or sell themselves into there positions. This shit is laughable..
Criminals will go to any means to keep from getting caught if they know there DNA is going to be used. Not all!!! But there will be those who will adapt to this and still commit serious crimes. Or just flat out want to go back to the big house, 3 meals a day, endless rest, the fear of being ass raped and or, being killed are minor set backs.
DNA samples should be required of all children born in the USA, period. It would help in the identification of accident victims as well as aid in the catching of criminals. The only possible privacy issue would be the one where a criminal could avoid identification. The hell with those assholes. If you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to fear.
Pigskin-Referee
Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow