Mandatory DNA Samples?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So I've been playing NationStates, an online game, and I encounter a question. Basically, you govern a nation and things happen according to the decisions you make. Here is the situation:

After delayed DNA evidence put a notorious rapist behind bars the police have demanded that it be mandatory for those accused of a crime to surrender blood and tissue samples to aid the elimination process.

Here is a response, which I presume is on the political left:


"This is a breach of privacy in every meaning of the word!" criminal defence attorney Miranda Licorish exclaims. "Or three words, but this is an outrage! It's these peoples' bodies, not the government's nor the police's. If they want to give a DNA sample it should be THEIR decision! Now I'll admit there have been times when DNA sampling has helped solve a case or two but shouldn't we be upholding the inherent right of every man and woman to have their body remain unmolested unless they should so choose it? Undoubtedly! DNA sampling should only take place with the person's informed consent."

***

Now that seems a bit ridiculous to me. Would anyone here actually defend the position that, if accused of a crime, you shouldn't have to give a simple DNA sample? If so, why shouldn't you be required?

[danyboy27]

So I've been playing NationStates, an online game, and I encounter a question. Basically, you govern a nation and things happen according to the decisions you make. Here is the situation:

After delayed DNA evidence put a notorious rapist behind bars the police have demanded that it be mandatory for those accused of a crime to surrender blood and tissue samples to aid the elimination process.

Here is a response, which I presume is on the political left:


"This is a breach of privacy in every meaning of the word!" criminal defence attorney Miranda Licorish exclaims. "Or three words, but this is an outrage! It's these peoples' bodies, not the government's nor the police's. If they want to give a DNA sample it should be THEIR decision! Now I'll admit there have been times when DNA sampling has helped solve a case or two but shouldn't we be upholding the inherent right of every man and woman to have their body remain unmolested unless they should so choose it? Undoubtedly! DNA sampling should only take place with the person's informed consent."

***

Now that seems a bit ridiculous to me. Would anyone here actually defend the position that, if accused of a crime, you shouldn't have to give a simple DNA sample? If so, why shouldn't you be required?

well. DNA might be unique but if the one found on the crime scene is severly damaged, then it might look like yours.

also, having your DNA on a crime scene dosnt really prove much, if for exemple by walking on the sidewalk you accidently ran into her, your hair and some particle of dead skin could be all over her.

you could have been on the crime scene hour before and left various DNA prints all over the place; sweat, hair, pubic hair, saliva, nails, blood etc etc etc.

DNA is reliable, but you can be fooled anyway.

[Demogorgon]

Because if you give the police the power to take DNA samples from whoever they please regardless of whether they have been convicted, that gives them an excessive amount of power over us.

[danyboy27]

Because if you give the police the power to take DNA samples from whoever they please regardless of whether they have been convicted, that gives them an excessive amount of power over us.

unless the dna bank is completly public and avaliable for all.

[spiltteeth]

Here in America the evidence against DNA being useful is so great that it is now being banned from court evidence.
Also, I'm a convicted Felon (Not for rape -for drugs) and the state has a permanent DNA sample of mine. This is dangerous considering the advancements of technology.
Plus %75 of people in jail are black. In practice this amounts to having a database on 1/3rd of the US black population's DNA. Hmmmm.....Ominous.

[Algernon]

DNA samples from people accused of a crime? No.

Of people convicted of a crime? Maybe. It would have to be strictly regulated.

[Kamerat]

So I've been playing NationStates, an online game, and I encounter a question. Basically, you govern a nation and things happen according to the decisions you make. Here is the situation:

After delayed DNA evidence put a notorious rapist behind bars the police have demanded that it be mandatory for those accused of a crime to surrender blood and tissue samples to aid the elimination process.

Here is a response, which I presume is on the political left:


"This is a breach of privacy in every meaning of the word!" criminal defence attorney Miranda Licorish exclaims. "Or three words, but this is an outrage! It's these peoples' bodies, not the government's nor the police's. If they want to give a DNA sample it should be THEIR decision! Now I'll admit there have been times when DNA sampling has helped solve a case or two but shouldn't we be upholding the inherent right of every man and woman to have their body remain unmolested unless they should so choose it? Undoubtedly! DNA sampling should only take place with the person's informed consent."

***

Now that seems a bit ridiculous to me. Would anyone here actually defend the position that, if accused of a crime, you shouldn't have to give a simple DNA sample? If so, why shouldn't you be required?
The arguments agains taking DNA from criminal without the criminal's informed consent would not be because the criminal would be molested:confused: when one takes the sample. Its because as some one said before, it gives the police more power over us. But i do see the need for taking DNA from criminals when they have been convicted of a crime (drug possession is not a crime) as it would help convict rapist and such who time and time again go free because of lack of evidence.

[Havet]

The arguments agains taking DNA from criminal without the criminal's informed consent would not be because the criminal would be molested:confused: when one takes the sample. Its because as some one said before, it gives the police more power over us. But i do see the need for taking DNA from criminals when they have been convicted of a crime (drug possession is not a crime) as it would help convict rapist and such who time and time again go free because of lack of evidence.

this

[spiltteeth]

Well, in PA America DNA samples are kept of ANYONE who has been convicted of a felony - weather violent or not (mine was for drug sales, and also you do not have to be actually selling, it is determined by how much you have, a mere 8 ball of coke would fall under drug sales) .

Obviously, I consider rape to be a monstrous crime. But if you let the state start taking DNA samples from then, as was the Case in the US, this will be expanded to other types of crime and if in the future the state decided to inch its way toward having a DNA sample of people even accused of a crime, it would not surprise me in the least.
Obviously many laws are slanted to denominate control over certain people, like minorities so it is indeed ominous where this could lead...

[mikelepore]

also, having your DNA on a crime scene dosnt really prove much, if for exemple by walking on the sidewalk you accidently ran into her, your hair and some particle of dead skin could be all over her.

It's true that everyone's hair and skin cells are all over the place and are randomly mixed together. But in the case of semen found in the body of a woman who has been raped, there's only one way that it could have gotten there. In the case of saliva on the back of a postage stamp that was used to mail a letter, there's only one way that it could have gotten there. If a person who was assaulted has scratched the assailant, and the suspect's blood is under the fingernails, there's only one way that it could have gotten there.

[mikelepore]

To be the devil's advocate ... where's the civil liberties violation in this? Suppose a big computer database stored a DNA sequence for everyone in the world. Now a gangster who has committed murder has a laceration and leaves some blood behind while escaping. You ask the computer for the name of the person who matches it. Assume the database can only be accessed during a crime investigation, so you don't have employers and insurance companies and credit card companies poking in there. What is the problem that civil libertarians could complain about?

[spiltteeth]

To be the devil's advocate ... where's the civil liberties violation in this? Suppose a big computer database stored a DNA sequence for everyone in the world. Now a gangster who has committed murder has a laceration and leaves some blood behind while escaping. You ask the computer for the name of the person who matches it. Assume the database can only be accessed during a crime investigation, so you don't have employers and insurance companies and credit card companies poking in there. What is the problem that civil libertarians could complain about?


Well, those are alot of assumptions. Remember , the NSA wiretaps by Bush were going to used ONLY for terrorists. Well, they used them to prove Eliot Spitzer of NY was with a hooker.
You can be sure of one thing, with such a data base it would be abused. No one ought to have that much info about somone.
Its freedom vs justice, and a balance must be reached.

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually, in the overwhelming majority of cases, DNA evidence exculpates people rather than convicts people.

But, having said that,


Would anyone here actually defend the position that, if accused of a crime, you shouldn't have to give a simple DNA sample? If so, why shouldn't you be required?


Ever heard of something called the presumption of innocence, or, for that matter, the Magna Carta?

[brigadista]

here are some practical reasons why not...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience1

[mikelepore]

Would anyone here actually defend the position that, if accused of a crime, you shouldn't have to give a simple DNA sample? If so, why shouldn't you be required?
Ever heard of something called the presumption of innocence, or, for that matter, the Magna Carta?

Presumption of innocence means the burden is on the prosecution at the trial, and a not guilty verdict is supposed to follow if the prosecution can't meet the burden. It doesn't mean the prosecution is prohibited from gathering more evidence from the suspect. To be forced to provide a DNA sample isn't that different from being forced to provide a set of fingerprints.