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?"
I just don't get the fearmongering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
...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.
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?
Nice comparison arguments...
Madoff pissed off so many rich, and it was so public that no doubt it lead to where it went.
Blagojevich is an insane person who somehow got elected, and was Governor of a state that had three other convicted Governors in the past 30 years. So, he was also a message to the government to stop dicking around with Illinois. Oh, and he is guilty.
Please. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein gets charged under RICO.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The problem with those two is that they stole, or tried to steal, money from OTHER rich people. Other rich people get angry, have them sent to jail.
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
'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.
Death penalty for parking tickets!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
"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"
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
The sad truth is that with the difference in the burden of truth between civil and criminal law AND the fact that the state collects a fine, there is ample reason for governments at any level to file civil rather than criminal charges. The latter generates no revenue, but does incur the cost of prosecution and incarceration. Sadly this makes the state an accomplice after the fact in many of these cases, and the victims do not recover their lost money. The wrongdoers have come to see paying the government as another form of taxation, "crime tax", but because the profits are so high, it works out nicely for them. In most cases the perpetrator agrees to pay a settlement without admitting to wrongdoing.
The SEC "agreed"not to file criminal charges against Fannie and Freddie or Mudd. The Wall Street Journal had a nice "Overview of the problem."
A google search for "WSJ civil criminal charges -BP -Madoff" will turn up enough to keep you busy all day.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Bankers already have to register their fingerprints with the US government so DNA testing is not that farfetched.
Actually the rich will be subject to DNA collection; however, the procedure will be slightly different.
The government will send over a special 'collection agent' who is trained to collect the subject's DNA in a manner that is both pleasant and non-intrusive (unless the subject is into that). To further ensure that the subject is not overly stressed, the collection process will take place at either their home or an expensive hotel. Finally, to show all the people whining about special privileges for the wealthy that rich people aren't above the law, everyone with sufficient wealth will be subject to frequent and vigorous retesting.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
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.)
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.
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.