Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York State Passes DNA Requirement For Almost All Convicted Criminals

Posted by Soulskill on from the accused-did-knowingly-and-recklessly-loiter dept.

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.'"

25 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. My first thought: by jm007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is making money from this?

    1. Re:My first thought: by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My first thought was "what's this 'Almost All' thing?" As in who gets excluded? The friends and families of politicians and big business people?

    2. Re:My first thought: by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who is making money from this?

      An excellent first question.

      We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals.

      I'd like to point out both violent and non-violent criminals start out as human beings, so if we just get DNA from all human beings, we will have it when they become violent criminals.

    3. Re:My first thought: by N1AK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably not far enough from the truth :(

      A bit of me almost wishes they'd just require DNA from everyone and try and get it over with. Either the populace would finally fight back and reclaim some rights or we'd give up the illusion of privacy and at least get some of the benefits that come with that. In the UK you can have DNA taken after being arrested, never get charged and still find it virtually/effectively impossible to get your DNA off of the database.

    4. Re:My first thought: by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, "they're all guilty of something" is the standard credo of cops and prosecutors. You can be guilty of something and not even know it thanks to the fucked up state of law in the USA.

      The goal of a program like this is to DNA-code the entire populace, which is ridiculous.

  2. The steps. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?"
    1. Re:The steps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in Scotland, the police take your DNA for speeding and then keep it regardless of conviction.

    2. Re:The steps. by izomiac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, a big problem with this requirement is that DNA isn't sequenced for identification. That's far too expensive (for now), but would allow for accurate identification excluding mosaics and twins (the former is likely underestimated in frequency since it's rarely relevant outside of this sort of analysis).

      The traditional method is to chop DNA at known uncommon sequences so you get several pieces, run them on a gel that separates them according to size, and see if the sizes and number of fragments match-up. This works because humans have a few variable length repeats that vary in size and change with each generation (an over-simplification, e.g. the repeats often expand if the mother has the gene but not the father). Modern DNA analysis is a bit more sophisticated, but the underlying principle is the same.

      So, how frequent are false positives? In an analysis of Arizona's 65,000 inmates researchers found 122 9/13 matches, 20 10/13, 1 11/13, and 1 12/13. Some of these were relatives but it's hard to say how many given the study was anonymous. So, it's a low rate but not low enough to use as police would like. I'm sure it'd be very easy to find some DNA at a crime scene, run the DNA search, find one person that matches and lives in the area, and arrest them for the crime.

      It's hard to argue that it's a false positive if you live a block from the crime scene and fit the physical description, but merely because people don't understand statistics very well. (E.g. if it turned out to be an 80 year old Chinese lady and not a 20-ish Black guy that resembled the description, then nobody would arrest her.) And, prosecutors are going to argue the one in 108 billion theoretic odds, without any deeper understanding of the statistics and genetics that make false positives more likely.

      Setting aside, for a moment, that I have tons of non-genetics issues with such a law, I must say this is premature. In a few years we'll be able to cheaply sequence DNA and have far more accurate identifications. Furthermore, we may be able to find genes and such that make violent behavior more likely, thus aiding research. So it's illogical to adopt this technology now rather than when it actually works well in a few years. It's not like the military immediately started commissioning Wright flyers as bombers and scouts.

  3. The UK already has this, and worse by SteWhite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The UK already has this, and worse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As usual, this is not the whole story.

      Part of processing your arrest involves taking your biometric identifiers (fingerprints, DNA) and storing them. If you are not charged or are acquitted, you can apply to have your biometric data destroyed, although I understand this process is complex, lengthy, and almost always unsuccessful. This is obviously the wrong way to go about it, but it's the way it is.

      This is being challenged in the ECHR, if I remember correctly. Destruction without request on no charge or acquital would be a start, taking samples only upon conviction much better. However, it's all "to prevent terrorism" or "to protect the children", so I'm surprised they don't ask for an actual pound of flesh.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:The UK already has this, and worse by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Data cannot be destroyed. Truly destroying it requires significant skill and effort.

      This is a lesson society has learned from the computer age. While a record can be deleted, it is really still there. On the drive, on a backup, on someone's laptop, on a flash drive, in a cache file, in an email, or some combination. Laws exist to make it illegal for governments, service providers, telecoms to delete data. So once it finds it's way to certain points it is protected from deletion.

      If we really want DNA to not be held, then it must never be collected in the first place. And since it is so easy to do, and so prevalent it is unlikely that will ever happen.

  4. Beginnings of a violent criminal by wheeda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Scary because DNA tests are not unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Horrible argument by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Does that Apply to Bankers? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein gets charged under RICO.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. The new permanent underclass: Felons by Paracelcus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:The new permanent underclass: Felons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When you take away everything, you have nothing to lose! And someone with nothing to lose is the most dangerous thing in the world!

      That's so right.

      Once you get a criminal record, you can never work again. Every employer - even for a shitty minimum wage job - requires background checks. Of course, everybody thinks that if you were arrested, you did something horrible - not that you had a joint and you were charge with possession, intent to distribute and even if you knelt on the ground and handcuffed yourself, you were also charged with resisting arrest.

      We live in a society that, when it comes to taxes, terrorism, drugs, and child molestation or the perception of it; you are guilty until proven innocent. And with the threat of long drawn out trials that are prohibitively expensive and a good chance of being convicted for something, folks take a deal; which ruins them for life.

      Prison isn't for rehabilitation: it's the initial punishment before you're condemned for life to poverty.

      Unless you're a banker or someone with great political connections - a 1%'er.

  9. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed and will never commit a crime?

    FTFY

  10. Who "owns" your DNA? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
  11. Re:Why is this different than fingerprints? by tiberus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it may be a bit a paranoia, it is certainly not fear mongering. Fingerprint data which is merely an image of the swirls, loops, etc. that make up your finger print basically only one use to show that someone (or thing) left a print a certain location and then to show you are or may have been the person that left that fingerprint.

    Your DNA on the other hand is a veritable cornucopia of information. It can reveal your genetic sex, relate you to your family members (who may also be in the database), tell if your a risk for a disease or cancer, a carrier for sickle cell anemia, the list go on and on and well on.

    This is a slippery slope issue. New York states that no one else will have access to the information, at least not today. Researchers, medical companies want and eventually ask for and may be granted access to this information to be used to benefit them, not us.

    Also consider that processing DNA is much more involved and technically challenging fingerprints, that concerns already exist about chain of custody, accuracy of the information kept and generated...

    I simply can't see this ending well.

  12. Increasing police power by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let's see...
    • The attorney general's office has the power to declare laws, and then to enforce the laws that it declares
    • The police now meet the definition of a paramilitary force, and get large amounts of surplus military equipment from the US military each year.
    • Law enforcement agencies in America have vast, secret intelligence operations
    • Law enforcement agencies in New York are now known to have secretly monitored innocent people, for no reason other than their religion
    • There are so many laws in effect that the police can arrest almost anyone on a whim -- they are nearly guaranteed to find a violation it they simply watch a person go about their daily business. People have even been arrested and prosecuted solely for resisting arrest.
    • There are more prisoners in the United States than in any other country, including authoritarian countries with larger populations (China). Only the USSR and Nazi Germany had larger prison populations.

    Do you really need to ask why people are opposed to further increases in police power?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  13. Re:because unlike fingerprints, this one's not acc by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?"
  14. Not setting the bar low enough... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Does that Apply to Bankers? by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this for white collar criminals too? Oh wait, the rich don't go to jail, they just make settlements.

    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 ..." they're usually exactly right.
  16. Its Inside Out by Walt+Sellers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)