New York State Passes DNA Requirement For Almost All Convicted Criminals 260
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.'"
My first thought: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:My first thought: (Score:5, 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?
Re:My first thought: (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, "they're all guilty of something [indranet.com]" is the standard credo of cops and prosecutors. You can be guilty of something and not even know it [youtube.com] thanks to the fucked up state of law [cnn.com] in the USA.
The goal of a program like this is to DNA-code the entire populace, which is ridiculous.
Re:My first thought: (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.
Re:My first thought: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The steps. (Score:5, Funny)
2. Copyright your DNA sequence.
3. Get arrested, convicted and have your DNA taken.
4. Sue like your the MPAA.
5. Profit?
Re:The steps. (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Scotland, the police take your DNA for speeding and then keep it regardless of conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that it would be impossible to copyright your DNA and have it hold up. But if someone DID manage to do what you suggested, they would either get a law passed that prohibits copyrighting of DNA or they would get a law passed that allows law enforcement to violate copyright on DNA when required to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The steps. (Score:4, Insightful)
Company (say, FreeDNAAnalysis.Com) starts offering free DNA sequencing so you can find out what diseases your predisposed to. But you have to accept an agreement that's so full of legalese that you don't read it/can't understand it. What it basically does is copyright your DNA and grant them the right to sell it to anyone. They acquire more DNA from other sources, such as law enforcement, or other government agencies who are collecting the data.
Then entities start buying this data. Insurance companies, or drug marketers, DHS, or whoever stands to make a profit from knowing that you have a family history of depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, heart disease, murder, whatever.
You, being a smart fellow, had the foresight to copyright your DNA beforehand. But your DNA was taken and sold off to FreeDNAAnalysis.Com because of a speeding ticket you had back in 2019.
Now the insurance company wants to jack up your rates because FreeDNAAnalysis.Com says your DNA makes you at risk to develop irritable bowel syndrome. You'll need an expensive lawyer in order to even be heard by anyone besides a call center drone in India. You'll need to give the lawyer your house to actually sue. And even then you'll probably lose. So you give up and just pay the extra $20 in insurance costs, which, when spread out of millions of people equates to a small rise in quarterly profits and bumps up the stock price of all of the companies involved.
You, unknowingly own some of the stock in your 401k, but it's not enough to amount to shit.
Re:The steps. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [latimes.com] 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.
Why is this different than fingerprints? (Score:2)
I just don't get the fearmongering.
Re:Why is this different than fingerprints? (Score:4, Informative)
Fingerprinting is old and mature tech. DNA profiling is still very new, and not very reliable (when you're talking about 1:300,000,000 error in the most detailed profiling that's currently used, however rarely, that's not very reliable. Even less reliable when you're using 32 markers or even 16, when the error ratio goes down to 1:4,000,000 and 1:100,000 respectively). What makes it *even less reliable* is the absolutely pitiful methods employed to maintain records of custody of samples - cross contamination is a real danger, both in transit and inside the lab. Fingerprints can be a: taken on scene, b: sent through an AFIS terminal and c: matched ON SCENE. The chain of custody is limited to *1* and the possibility of cross contamination of the sample is ZERO.
Re:Why is this different than fingerprints? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fingerprinting is old and mature tech.
So are acupuncture, astrology, and polygraph interpretation. I wouldn't put a lot of stock into age as a measure of reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA carries much more information about a person. As technologies improve in the genetics industry and with human ingenuity for dastardly deeds, it's not hard to conceive of how this information could be abused.
Once you're in the system, there's usually no way out. Be very cautious about things with things that can't be undone.
Re: (Score:2)
Collection of fingerprints is wholly non-invasive. Is the collection of DNA?
Re:Why is this different than fingerprints? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is this different than fingerprints? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
97% of the human genome is "junk" DNA. What does this mean? Simply, that any company who wants to patent a genetic sequence based on junk DNA can do so with no complication.
What I don't get is why all this padding? Is/was "God" a programmer for Microsoft?
Jokes aside, it also means that your DNA, for all intents, belongs to someone else. You're just renting it.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is why all this padding? Is/was "God" a programmer for Microsoft?
Comments. Not our problem you don't understand the language.
Increasing police power (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really need to ask why people are opposed to further increases in police power?
Re: (Score:2)
Should also mention that the NYPD is particularly bad on the police state mentality:
* Their attacks on peaceful protesters during Occupy Wall St, most notably Anthony Bologna pepper-spraying [youtube.com]. Forget the First Amendment's assembly clause.
* They're currently engaged in a massive program to spy on Muslims [timesunion.com], all without a warrant, without even notifying the jurisdictions they're sending their officers into, and of course violating the First Amendment's free exercise clause by very explicitly targeting anybody wh
Re: (Score:3)
What would a criminal need to fake your fingerprint at a crime scene?
What would a criminal need to fake your DNA at a crime scene? A piece of hair from a brush or comb or from your last trip to the barber shop? A few flakes of skin that they could collect from you as they brush past you in on a crowded subway terminal or restaurant?
Its Inside Out (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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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 have
DNA not accurate? (Score:2)
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.
Re:because unlike fingerprints, this one's not acc (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed a crime?
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed and will never commit a crime?
FTFY
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
we are all, already, imprisoned.
(deep thought for friday morning, I know).
you are not free to move around and you are not free to do many things. sure, we have some token liberties given to us, as they often throw dogs a bone.
but we are, in a very real sense, imprisoned. you can name many things you think you can freely do but I can probably name more things that we should be able to do and we can't.
society is a balance of control and freedom. I think we jumped the shark a few decades ago and its been downhill on the freedom ride ever since.
this just proves it, but in a more blatant and in-your-face way. they don't even try to hide it anymore.
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
There you go. That's the appropriate level of cynicism. Now are you going to keep voting for the same authoritarians, or are you going to make your voice heard by voting for a third party?
Re: (Score:3)
...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed a crime?
DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!
The UK already has this, and worse (Score:5, 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.
Re:The UK already has this, and worse (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is even if a decision comes from the ECHR the UK courts have said that they'll treat them as advisories and nothing more, to be discarded when it suits (have a look through decisions made in the Family Division of the High Court, particularly at Hague cases. Wall LJ himself went public stating that he spoke for the vast majority of judges in saying that ECHR had no jurisdiction in British courts and that their decisions would be summarily ignored).
ECHR has no teeth in the British legal system.
Re:The UK already has this, and worse (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
So by that logic, the police shouldn't take and store the fingerprints of anyone they arrest, because they haven't been charged or convicted. Yet the police have been doing exactly that for more than 100 years.
Those "fundamental rights" you complain about were lost a long time ago. A
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fucking atrocity.
Rape. Murder. Torture. The collected works of Justin Bieber.
Let's have a little perspective here.
Beginnings of a violent criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They already collect DNA samples from every infant born in New York State! This is done under a regime of genetic disease testing. However, the records are kept and not destroyed. At some point in the future, I expect this database and the criminal database to be linked (if they are not already).
When my child was born, I tried to opt out and the hospital said it was mandatory. The state requires it. More info here: http://www.wadsworth.org/newborn/services.html
Scary because DNA tests are not unique (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok a crime happened in the Bronx. You match the DNA up you see one match belongs to one guy who lives in Queens, and an other from a guy who lives in Albany. Who do you question first?
Re: (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The study they cite in that "article" is available here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-evidence-creates-victims-of-chance.html
Horrible argument (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Considering how everyone will commit at least one felony in their lifetime....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is a book "Three Felonies a Day". From the Amazon description "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague."
Re: (Score:2)
The new permanent underclass: Felons (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!
Re:The new permanent underclass: Felons (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.
Not going far enough. (Score:2)
'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.
The simple solution (Score:3)
Death penalty for parking tickets!
violent criminals very often begin their careers (Score:3)
"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.)
Who "owns" your DNA? (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?
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. This is more than a rights grab by the police. It's an information grab by whatever company is doing DNA work for the police, and who probably lobbied hard to get this law enacted.
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically, full US DNA fingerprinting checks only 13 Loci, out of millions (if not billions). None currently are known to code for disease, and honestly it would be extremely unlikely for any of those 13 to code for disease.
HOWEVER Those loci are inheritable, so you can tell whose father is whose. Which can lead to divorce and/or lawsuits over paternity payments.
Scary Future World (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that's what Congress was. I had just assumed they hadn't got the 'highly intelligent' part working yet, and had opted for an extra measure of 'easy to control'.
You Degenerate! (Score:2)
Why stop there? (Score:2)
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 [google.ca], 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 me
Not setting the bar low enough... (Score:5, 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?
Even relatives are caught in the net (Score:3)
One better... (Score:2)
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 apprehend
Boo Hoo for felons and criminals (Score:2)
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.
What about Family Members (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:So... privacy should allow the guilty to get of (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The good news . . . (Score:2)
This is how we police state (Score:2)
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 ar
now let's have DNA samples for officials (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal Law people can go to jail have a criminal history.
Cival Law People pay money.
It is Murder vs. Wrongful Death.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
For most of the Rich they are not breaking Criminal Laws
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Bankers already have to register their fingerprints with the US government so DNA testing is not that farfetched.
Re:Does that Apply to Bankers? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Does that Apply to Bankers? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to miss the comedy he has provided over the last three years to the fine state of Illinois.
Re:Does that Apply to Bankers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein gets charged under RICO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Jackson, and Ted Kennedy
Ummm, that'll be a bit difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm aside...
Having your DNA on record isn't much different then getting your fingerprints taken, which will happen if you get arrested too.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. If you break US law, I'm sure Canada will be happy to extradite you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not commit a crime, you should not get arrested and DNA profiled...
Sarcasm, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there are no cases where people have been innocent but still convicted just because there where a very strong suspicion that the person did it...
Or how about that there are lots of people accepting rulings without a jury because they cannot afford a lawyer and accepting a 2 year probation sentence instead of risking going to jail and loosing everything they have.. Just getting arrested for something can cause havoc on people's lives, even if they are cleared of all wrong-doing..
I could agree to somethin
Convictions are all about reducing your rights (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The 2 issues, is that this is done prior to any conviction. The second is this is gathering of evidence for a crime that has 1) has not occurred 2) is requiring people to provide evidence against themselves solely on the assumption of a probable cause of nonviolent criminals may become a violent criminal.
While I think a case could be made that taking your DNA may not in it's self be a violation, but taking it with the expressed reason of using it to be searched for every crime they investigate where DNA is
Law enforcement databases HIPAA compliant? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>(fingerprints) are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes.
I don't think that would have survived a constitutional challenge. They must be taken primarily to either verify identity, or towards evidence of a current crime with probable cause. The fact they were then allowed to be retained and searched later is allowed, but I don't think as the primary purpose, they would not be allowed to be gathered without other primary cause.
Also fingerprints were ruled as something, that was exposed
Re: (Score:3)
Like fingerprints, DNA is routinely left behind as a person moves about in general society. Glasses, bottles and cans we drink from; even object that
Re: (Score:2)
Watch Gattaca (where people are denied jobs simply because they have bad genes, even though doing that is technically illegal). I'm not saying we've reached that stage yet but why would I want to have my DNA in a government database waiting for that future to arrive?
I don't want my DNA "out there" anymore than I want to use my real name on the internet so google can develop an easily-searchable profile of my actions. This DNA collection reminds me of what the East German police did -- collecting millions
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want my DNA "out there" anymore than I want to use my real name on the internet so google can develop an easily-searchable profile of my actions.
That's why I may or may not have shaved.
Re: (Score:2)
It was my understanding that it was *NOT* illegal within the premise of the movie.
It's interesting to note that laws prohibiting that type of discrimination only came out *after* that movie was in theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here [nyclu.org], through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here [aclu.org], here [aclu.org] and here [aclu.org].
By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".