<p>
</p>
<p>[Feds</a> to collect DNA from every person they arrest - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection]Feds”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection)</p>
<p>So what do you think of that? Big brother or just good crime fighting?</p>
<p>*"collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency *are the operative words here. </p>
<p>Arrested, means suspected, NOT convicted of anything. And under this government plan the DNA record does NOT disappear, if charges are not brought forth after the arrest OR if dropped OR if the defendant is found subsequently found to be “not guilty”.</p>
<p>This is no longer the country I grew up in.</p>
<p>In the name of Law and Order, National Security, Immigration both legal and illegal, Terrorism, by the Patriot Act, written by a tenured professor of law, and passed by a Republican control Congress. Why not. We are safer, are we not?</p>
<p>I’m out of cheeses.</p>
<p>This is no different that getting finger prints. Just more accurate and more detailed, The problem isn’t getting the dna, finger prints, or anything else. The problem is; some ultra liberal lawyer is going to get that rapist, murderer, molester, teen ager who killed another teen; etc… all off in the case because of loopholes. And, if by some chance the criminal actually gets convicted, their sentence will be shortened to about 10% because the court and jury will be told how this poor person had no father, a mother who didn’t love them, a school system that didn’t care, and a society that has given up on them. Don’t worry about surrendering a DNA sample. It’s no different than a finger print. Care more about the judicial system not holding people accountable for their actions and letting them back on the streets again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you missed this in the law school you probably didn’t go to, but it is a lawyer’s professional responsibility to present the best possible case for their client. I would expect nothing less of an ultra-liberal lawyer, just like I would expect the most hard-line conservative Republican to fight vigorously for their client’s defense.</p>
<p>It is not the lawyer’s job to determine the guilt or innocence of their client. That job is for judge and jury; the lawyer’s sole moral and ethical responsibility is to defend their client as best they can.</p>
<p>And I worry very much about the government keeping DNA on every person, based just on arrest, and hope that it will somehow be struck down. The idea of the government being able to track your most personal signature feature and keep it in perpetuity based simply upon you having possibly committed a crime is galling, in my opinion.</p>
<p>1of42. I don’t understand. What is it that a DNA sample of someone bothers you? I see it no more than a more accurate form of identification. I remember a couple of years ago, before retiring from the military, that they were starting DNA testing to keep on file. Your DNA doesn’t change, and it makes for great identification. Fire, drowning, and some other things that one might not want to imagine, can make it where finger prints and dentures aren’t always an accurate form of identification. In the past, those arrested; even if not convicted; had finger prints done. These remained on file. Future crimes where a finger print was available, could be run through the database and look for a match for a possible suspect. What is wrong with doing the same thing with DNA. If a woman was raped, and they found samples of his hair on her body or skin under her finger nails; wouldn’t it be useful to be able to find possible suspects? I just don’t get your complaint.</p>
<p>As far as the lawyer thing goes, I’ve always had the problem with lawyers getting clients off who were guilty. Most lawyers know for a fact if their client is guilty or not. They admit it either way. I could never be a defense lawyer unless the client agreed to admitting guilt; if they were; and that they wanted me to help them get a reduced sentence or some other form of plea bargain. At least their guilt is admitted. My wife’s law firm deals mostly with contract law and such; criminal cases aren’t really done. Yet, she has seen her fair share of criminal cases being dismissed or acquitted because of loopholes. That’s why she won’t work with such clients. Fortunately, except for the public defender, a law firm is allowed to accept or reject a client. But again, she doesn’t work with criminal cases, so that’s not something she has to really deal with.</p>
<p>“the lawyer’s sole moral and ethical responsibility is to defend their client as best they can.”</p>
<p>That’s an overstatement. The lawyer has a responsibility to the court and the public as well. The lawyer cannot lie to the court or knowingly allow anyone else to lie to the court, even if it helps the client.</p>
<p>“criminal cases being dismissed or acquitted because of loopholes.”</p>
<p>The Bill of Rights is not a loophole. The right to due process of law is not a loophole. If people who committed serious felonies are let go, it’s generally because of very serious misconduct on the part oft he government (and it doesn’t happen very much.)</p>
<p>“Most lawyers know for a fact if their client is guilty or not.”</p>
<p>Which lawyers are these? Have you ever worked on a criminal case?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose it’s never occurred to you that someone might actually be innocent of whatever crime he/she is accused of, has it?!</p>
<p>Owlice; PLEASE read the entire SENTENCE that I wrote. It will help you when you decide to respond.</p>
<p>But; to make life easier for you, I’ll write again the part you conveniently left out.</p>
<p>I could never be a defense lawyer unless the client agreed to admitting guilt; if they were;</p>
<p>Notice the “IF THEY WERE” part.</p>
<p>Christcorp, good of you to condense your post; I appreciate it.</p>
<p>The way I read this was that DNA would be collected much the same way fingerprints are collected. Originally even finger prints were thought to be against the Bill of Rights, but now we don’t think twice about collecting them–even for crimes when fingerprints play little (if any) role. We studied this proposed legislation extensively in my government class senior year, and I think you would be interested to learn that laws of this type exist in both Europe and Asia and have been a key factor in reducing the amount of violent crimes and unlawful imprisonments. Wouldn’t you be surprised to learn that in fact, more people were released from death row based on DNA than were added to it in 2004?</p>
<p>Let’s say you’re arrested and then not prosecuted. You’re not guilty, you’re probably a good law-abiding citizen, so the fact that a swab of your cheek cells is in some database has no real claim on anything you do. What’s the harm in that? On the other hand, if a dangerous criminal is arrested and prosecuted but gets off, the chances of him committing that crime again are extremely high (83% of violent offenders are repeat offenders) so having their DNA on file would make it easier for our courts and justice system to connect cases and punish the right person.</p>
<p>I really don’t see why there’s any debate of this at all. It’s the way technology is going and has been designed to help the citizens of our country.</p>
<p>No problem. I understand that many of my posts are long winded. Quite easy to miss a point I was trying to make.</p>
<p>FWIW; When I make the comment “Ultra-Liberal”, that is not a reflection of the lawyer’s political affiliation. It’s in their liberal attempt to use the law for their profit. I.e. The 101 commercials you see on TV about; “If you’ve been harmed at such and such, call the law firm of So and So”. There’s a lot of ambulance chasers. There’s a lot of them in the public media world that love to sensationalize. Like miss Allred taking on the teenage girl who was beaten by other teens. Granted, this is a “victim” case, so i can’t dog her for that; but there’s a lot like her, Johnny Cochran, etc… in the world looking to sensationalize and exploit their “Client”. They have no concern for the truth or the law. Sorry for confusing Ultra-liberal with applying to a Democrat or other political preference. In the legal profession, there are Ultra-Liberal lawyers on all sides of the political system trying to sensationalize a case.</p>
<p>kristin, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm… I’ve not thought about this issue before, but let’s see…</p>
<p>Perhaps because DNA carries a lot of other information with it over and above that needed for identity, information that fingerprints don’t carry, and the ability to ferret out that information will only grow over time, and no one knows what this information might be used for.</p>
<p>Got a Social Security number? Of course. The Social Security Act specificially prohibits the use of the SSNs as a national ID number. Oh, well, too bad for that! The usefulness of this number has simply been too tempting, so there has been legislation over the years that expanded when and how this number can be required. (And never mind how many businesses which don’t have any right to your SSN routinely ask for and store your SSN.)</p>
<p>One need not be arrested to have one’s fingerprints taken. Mine have been on file with the FBI for decades, since the first time I had a job that required them. (Of course, that means they were also on file with the employer who first fingerprinted me.)</p>
<p>Will bank tellers – the job that first required my being fingerprinted – have to routinely give up DNA samples, because that’s the (likely eventual, under this plan) standard identity technology of law enforcement agencies? It’s unlikely that DNA sample collection for ID purposes will end with those arrested for a crime; fingerprinting didn’t.</p>
<p>DNA is useful for detection of certain medical conditions, and the propensity to develop certain medical conditions. </p>
<p>How safe are Social Security numbers? Not very, as has been made very obvious in recent years. (Some states require SSNs on marriage certificates/records, and these records are PUBLIC records. Anyone can paw through them.)</p>
<p>How safe will routinely-collected DNA records be? Are you willing to bet your children’s and grandchildren’s medical insurability on the ability of all parties with DNA records to keep them safe?</p>
<p>I think I can see why there might be some objections to this; will have to read more about the issue to see what others who aren’t writing off the tops of their heads have to say about it.</p>
<p>Christcorp, this time, it wasn’t the length of your post (I certainly have NO room to complain about other peoples’ long posts, as you can see!), but your error in punctuating that sentence.</p>
<p>As a scientist, I like having a larger data pool from which to work with.</p>
<p>As a citizen, this is a slippery slope, and suddenly I’m nervous, within the context of the Patriot Act society… Ever seen Gattaca…?</p>
<p>No problem with DNA samples from arrested individuals if the use is limited and controlled to those purposes appropriate to legitimate law enforcement purposes.</p>
<p>It is potentially a very intrusive reach of the government, but a significant number of not guilty individuals have been freed as well through the collection effort.</p>
<p>A balance is in order. We can do this.</p>
<p>I agree with Christcorp about DNA. Mug shot=fingerprint=DNA. (As to the rest of CC’s rant about the law and lawyers, well, sometimes its just best to look the other way and pretend that little “accident” didn’t happen.)</p>
<p>Interesting article in today’s Washington Post about the use of DNA. It’s not just the criminal’s they may seek; they may be able to use a sample from a family member without that family member’s consent or knowledge. Basically, they can/want to do data mining from, for example, medical specimens someone may have given years ago.</p>
<p>[From</a> DNA of Family, a Tool to Make Arrests](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002388_pf.html]From”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002388_pf.html)</p>
<p>And from that article, dig this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emphasis mine. So if you are the victim of a crime in PG County, your DNA may be added to the county database, without your knowledge.</p>
<p>Peachy, just peachy.</p>
<p>And what is wrong about adding DNA? You may be a “Victim” today; but you could be a criminal, unidentified individual, etc… tomorrow. You DNA isn’t something that is going to change. What is it about your DNA that is so private that you don’t like having it on file? I would have no problem that as the opportunity exists, that a DNA sample be given. Crimes, victims, hospital in/out patient care, military service, etc… Whenever the opportunity arises. Imagine all the crimes that can be curbed. Especially things like identity fraud. </p>
<p>I know; there are those that think it equates to the “Mark of the beast” or some other type of personal privacy invasion. I just don’t see it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Imagine all the crimes that could be curbed if we marked everyone with RFID tracking devices!</p>