Gobblement can seize your DNA, according the the Conservatives on the S. Ct.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...olds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite

So the Supreme Court has just ruled that the Government can take a DNA sample from everyone upon arrest. Are you comfortable with the Government being able to take your DNA before you've been found guilty of anything?

This is a big step toward a national database of everyone's DNA, owned by the Government!

What are your thoughts? Those considered the MOST liberal, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg all voted against it!

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, all voted to give the government this power!
 
Jarod said:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...olds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite

So the Supreme Court has just ruled that the Government can take a DNA sample from everyone upon arrest. Are you comfortable with the Government being able to take your DNA before you've been found guilty of anything?

This is a big step toward a national database of everyone's DNA, owned by the Government!

What are your thoughts? Those considered the MOST liberal, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg all voted against it!

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, all voted to give the government this power!
Click to expand...

this is not a 'conservative' issue any more than it is a 'liberal' issue. "it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting" is a direct result of everyone that demanded that the constitution be a living document and that the courts should interpret it via the times that we live in.

so there you have it.
 
Jarod said:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...olds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite

So the Supreme Court has just ruled that the Government can take a DNA sample from everyone upon arrest. Are you comfortable with the Government being able to take your DNA before you've been found guilty of anything?

This is a big step toward a national database of everyone's DNA, owned by the Government!

What are your thoughts? Those considered the MOST liberal, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg all voted against it!

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, all voted to give the government this power!
Click to expand...

I don't plan on being arrested, but I am not entirely comfortable with this ruling, either.
 
Rana said:
I don't plan on being arrested, but I am not entirely comfortable with this ruling, either.
Click to expand...

The only reason you have to be uncomfortable is that Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg all voted against it....
That has given you a reason...follow the lefty crowd.
 
Damocles said:
Are you comfortable with fingerprinting people under arrest?
Click to expand...

I am. I do have some reservations about this ruling though. If a DNA profile is all that is kept, I don't see it as that different than fingerprinting. But samples must be obtained to get that profile and samples can be used as planted evidence to frame someone.
 
leaningright said:
I am. I do have some reservations about this ruling though. If a DNA profile is all that is kept, I don't see it as that different than fingerprinting. But samples must be obtained to get that profile and samples can be used as planted evidence to frame someone.
Click to expand...

One could also plant fingerprints.
 
leaningright said:
I am. I do have some reservations about this ruling though. If a DNA profile is all that is kept, I don't see it as that different than fingerprinting. But samples must be obtained to get that profile and samples can be used as planted evidence to frame someone.
Click to expand...

My concern with DNA is it can be used for a lot more than just identification; as DNA analysis progresses, more will be learned from it. And I just don't trust police to keep medical information private. Imagine if some star gets pulled over, has to give DNA test, and then the DNA gets leaked to a company that can analyze it for any genetic issues..So I would prefer it only be taken upon conviction or if there's a really good chance the person is the suspect.

Or am I just paranoid?
 
There are many things science and technology provides that make me uncomfortable as well as other things I really LOVE! I suspect that the older I get this may accelerate.

But, I guess that thinking about the "legality" as against the "technology" - I would favor the legality of being able to take and use DNA samples to catch and convict bad people.

Using DNA to frame someone is obvioously illegal in any case and is not the same question at all. Just as using advanced technology to invade your bedroom without your knowledge would be illegal lacking some kind of court order. But we allow videos and recording as evidence, assuming they were obtained legally, to convict someone. Yet, newer CGI technology COULD provide a greater chance to frame someone here as well.

It could all come down to custody of evidence, obtained through whatever means.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is not a 'conservative' issue any more than it is a 'liberal' issue. "it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting" is a direct result of everyone that demanded that the constitution be a living document and that the courts should interpret it via the times that we live in.

so there you have it.
Click to expand...


I assume you're talking about the people that argue that the right to bear arms does not extend to muskets and similar armaments available at the time of the writing of the Constitution, but extends to all modern armaments of military utility.
 
Dungheap said:
I assume you're talking about the people that argue that the right to bear arms does not extend to muskets and similar armaments available at the time of the writing of the Constitution, but extends to all modern armaments of military utility.
Click to expand...
no. very few people actually try to argue that particular viewpoint. what i'm talking about is the entire constitution and bill of rights being argued as a 'living document', especially by people that think the courts have the power to define and redefine what it means. it's how waterboarding is no longer torture (at least when the government does it) or how police officers are both exempt from certain laws and elevated above other laws. If you NEED to liken it to something other than the 2nd Amendment, just do some research on exigent circumstances as exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
 
Dungheap said:
I think DNA is something of a different animal than a fingerprint.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change my post at all. If the fear is that you can be framed, one can frame you with a set of your fingerprints as much as DNA. I'm actually surprised that criminals haven't gotten smart enough to plant extra DNA profiles around crime scenes... It wouldn't be that difficult to obtain your own samples. Shoot you can get samples from a trash can near a Starbucks.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change my post at all. If the fear is that you can be framed, one can frame you with a set of your fingerprints as much as DNA. I'm actually surprised that criminals haven't gotten smart enough to plant extra DNA profiles around crime scenes... It wouldn't be that difficult to obtain your own samples. Shoot you can get samples from a trash can near a Starbucks.
Click to expand...


I didn't intend to change your post. I responded to it. And, no, I'm not afraid of being framed. I just think a DNA sample is quite a bit more invasive than a fingerprint and reasons justifying fingerprinting aren't necessarily applicable to taking DNA samples, at least in my view.


And, yes, you can obtain DNA from a trash can near Starbucks, but you'd probably be hard-pressed to connect that DNA to a specific individual.
 
Dungheap said:
I didn't intend to change your post. I responded to it. And, no, I'm not afraid of being framed. I just think a DNA sample is quite a bit more invasive than a fingerprint and reasons justifying fingerprinting aren't necessarily applicable to taking DNA samples, at least in my view.


And, yes, you can obtain DNA from a trash can near Starbucks, but you'd probably be hard-pressed to connect that DNA to a specific individual.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't matter if you were a criminal simply dropping extra DNA around a crime scene.

Basically there were two points:

1. I was responding directly to somebody who was worried about being framed, hence my explanation about if you are solely worried about being framed you are way too late, those same people could have framed you long ago with your prints.
2. I am surprised criminals haven't adopted the practice of adding random DNA to crime scenes to make the issue a bit more "cloudy"...
 
Dungheap said:
And, yes, you can obtain DNA from a trash can near Starbucks, but you'd probably be hard-pressed to connect that DNA to a specific individual.
Click to expand...

that's part of the deal though. while it would initially be an unknown piece of DNA, imagine being arrested a few years from now, your DNA taken, and the next thing you know you're sitting in front of the FBI being asked questions about a triple murder from 2 years before.
 
Damocles said:
Which wouldn't matter if you were a criminal simply dropping extra DNA around a crime scene.

Basically there were two points:

1. I was responding directly to somebody who was worried about being framed, hence my explanation about if you are solely worried about being framed you are way too late, those same people could have framed you long ago with your prints.
2. I am surprised criminals haven't adopted the practice of adding random DNA to crime scenes to make the issue a bit more "cloudy"...
Click to expand...


Basically, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top