D.N.A upon arrest

Lonleycarrots · October 2010

*This question is being asked for a school project. It can be conservertiol, and Im asking for opinions. Do not accuse someone of being wrong, and make sure to always be clear as to if its an opinion if any argument are started (theres a diffrence between debate and argument) I will ask an op to delete this post. Thanks. The question is do you think D.N.A should be taken upon arrest? My opinion is yes, I think It should. There are alot of cons to this though. -Man/women arrested, but wrongly accused and is now in a criminal database. Man/women chould have been making an easy mistake, speeding, intoxicated, or being a silly teen, and is also in the database mixed with murderes and robbers. --The above statment can easily cause a person to be a person of intrest/suspect. For example, a women was a dumb teen, and paints girfitee. Then grows up, becomes mature and her sister is murderd. Because a strand of her hair is on her sisters shirt, this women is now the #1 suspect of her sisters killing -Very unlikey, but higher chances of goverment officals planting d.n.a -Goes against the 5th amendment of self incrimination -Chances of being wrongly accused are raised dramatically. d.n.a can be planted, and or you where at the location of the crime hours before it was commited, or mabey just brushed shoulders with the real criminal or victom. -D.n.a can be taken for medical uses without concent But there are so many pros to, and my explantations behind them are much to long to post. I think it should because lets say your a mother, I know many on vp can relate to that. You have a beutifull little girl, whos 6 and was riding her bike and was kidnapped, and instead of getting a warrent or having no clue, the kidnapper left his d.n.a on the bike of your child, and he's in the database for to many tickets 6 years ago! That increases the chaces of finding your child, considering most kids are found dead after 24 hours. All most of the cons are easily fixed and or rare. But the pro I stated above? It happens every single day, and to wait hours, or days to find a criminal, or recieve a warrant, why not just look him up? I already know most people disagree with me, so Im ready. Im actully open to long long pages of opinions it whould help my project drastically, even thought I have 4 pages full or pros and cons on word in size 11 font lol. Im going super nerd on this.

RoyalRaccoon · October 2010

I've taken law enforcement classes, and may one day enter into law enforcement, so I have had to think about this. I do find D.N.A. to be very important, but it's not practical to take D.N.A. from everyone, especially for petty crimes like a DUI, assault, or theft. From a strictly non-opinionated view point, many U.S. labs are already insanely backlogged on processing D.N.A. For my state alone it's estimate to take something like decades(I don't remember the exact amount of time, but it was shocking) for them to process what has just been collected thus far, without including what is being collected everyday. I know they've made improvements, and are still trying to make more, but they've got a lot more work to do, and that's only in regards to the current crimes that require D.N.A. testing. Do I think D.N.A. should be taken upon all arrests? No. Someone who makes the bad choice to drive while a little intoxicated, or someone who is mad at a partner and throws a shoe is it highly unlikely to go an kidnap a child, and thus there is no point in taking their D.N.A. because it will only add onto backlogs. Name, prints, etc. is enough for this, while D.N.A. would just be working hard, not smart. Do I think D.N.A. should be taken upon certain arrests? Yes. Any crime committed where D.N.A. could prove valuable should require that all of those arrested for said crime should submit D.N.A. samples with or without consent. Honestly, I've seen this argued every which way, and both sides have flaws if you follow them extremely. From my point of view, the very best option is somewhere in the middle, or close to what we currently use.

Troglin · October 2010

Forced DNA swabs would be illegal for numerous reasons, mainly the fact that it violates our rights. Every United States citizen has the right to be protected from illegal searches and due process. If you force a suspect to give up his or her DNA, any defense attorney will have the results ruled inadmissible. Why? They need to either willingly give up a DNA sample or the prosecutor must have a court order to take the DNA. Without it, you are conducting an illegal search. In order to obtain a court order to take a DNA sample, you must have probable cause. Just because you were seen hanging around in an awkward location doesn't mean you were up to no good. At least, in the eyes of the law, the police probably didn't even have a legitimate reason to place you under arrest. Probable cause is defined as a "reasonable link between a specific person and a crime". So say you're walking down the street and you somewhat match the description of a suspect wanted for robbery. They take you into custody for questioning. They're absolutely sure that you're the one they've been searching for -- and, unfortunately for you, you have no concrete alibi. They may be able to get by with probable cause. They now force you to give up a DNA sample, and then leave you sitting in a cell or an interrogation room for who knows how long. {And DNA takes a while to process.} Oh, the results came back negative for the crime they were investigating. They let you go. Somewhere down the road, your friend is found dead in her apartment. The week before, you accidentally cut yourself and there's blood on the wall. You never cleaned it up. Your DNA was found at the scene, and they use the database to find a match. You pop up. Of course, they might be able to clear you up and mark off a potential suspect quickly, but you'd still be going through the hassle of interrogation. Convicted criminals, those of violent crimes, have their DNA registered in a database. I'm not sure if everyone convicted is in the database -- it may vary upon your local or state to determine it. Other people in the database include certain government employees and cleared suspects. Note that not all databases are actually connected. The federal government has access to more DNA or fingerprints than most state or local governments. They have the funding and the resources to do so. Not every government agency can update their records on a regular basis, so there are discrepancies in all of them. DNA is like fingerprinting. Have you ever been fingerprinted? It's easier to do for booking a suspect initially. Fingerprinting isn't just for suspects or criminals though. In order to do foster care, for example, anyone with access to those children must have their fingerprints taken and a full background check done. Some banks require fingerprints for certain transactions. Government agencies take fingerprints of some employees. If you want secret clearance for the government, you have to go through fingerprinting and extensive background checks. Or, if you're just visiting a jail, you typically (if not always) get fingerprinted. Some of these fingerprints end up in records for law enforcement agencies to use. Those who have committed minor offenses, like traffic violations, are not taken into custody. They're given a warning or a citation and a court date. That means if you're caught speeding, you don't have to worry about any tests so long as that's all you are doing. I emphasize that because some people carry concealed weapons illegally, have illegal items on their person or in their possession, etc. So taking DNA of someone who was just speeding would be utterly pointless. My personal opinion? I think the constitution should be upheld. We were given our rights and our law enforcement, government, and our representatives should never cross them unlawfully. Too many laws created go against the constitution, especially controversial issues that certain groups face today. Do people really care? Not really. Our government officials and fellow citizens seem to do things that further their own agenda, rather than actually truly care about the rights of others. ... Before I stray off topic though, while requiring DNA may be helpful for trying and convicting a criminal, it does nothing to prevent crime. It would do nothing to deter crime, and it would honestly not help the conviction rate much at all. In the case of a kidnapper situation, police could have the perps name, address, DNA, license plate, etc. and it doesn't mean that they will find the victim in time. Kidnappers are usually fairly good at hiding, especially if they've done it before. They also do not commit crimes just to see if they'll get away with it -- or at least, most of them don't. They often have disgusting intentions, and regardless of how quickly or how intensely you search, they will probably do what they want before you get there. As I said before, the likelihood of DNA upon arrest passing would be slim to none. If it did somehow manage to get passed, defense attorneys would have a field day in court. It would be like giving them a "get out of jail free" pass. If you violate the suspect's rights, the evidence is inadmissible. A good defense attorney could argue that without the illegal seizure of the defendants DNA, the prosecutor would not have been able to obtain further evidence against his or her client. Therefore, by passing a legislation of this nature, you would probably increase the acquittal or dismissal rate of criminals rather than the conviction rate. {Obviously the opposite of what we're trying to do.} I do want to say that government officials aren't all corrupt. Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the constitution and follow procedure. There are some dirty cops who could always frame a suspect, but it wouldn't increase just because there was a DNA database. The database just allows for the same result -- in order to plant DNA or any other evidence, you must have a physical sample. I'd be more terrified that a really screwed up ex would somehow get hairs/fibers/fluid and plant it. Also, DNA cannot be the prosecutions only evidence. It would be purely circumstantial to say that the DNA was only found on the victim/crime scene. Without additional evidence to support the prosecutions case, it probably wouldn't even make it through the Grand Jury. If it somehow made it through the GJ, any responsible judge would throw the case out for lack of evidence. If the judge didn't throw the case out, a jury cannot be expected to find the suspect "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In some terrible circumstance that they did, I could pretty much guarantee that the appellate courts would throw the conviction out. And, DNA taken for medical reasons cannot be used in the court of law. You are entitled to privacy with a doctor, and as such they cannot give up any fluid samples. Even if the suspect was shot by a police officer, they cannot take the suspects DNA without a court order or without written consent from the suspect. If somehow the doctor pulled a blood sample and gave it to the police officers, you could sue the doctor and the government. In ideal circumstances (up to date databases accessible to local, state, and the federal government), here are pro's and con's.. Pro's - Would be able to identify the offender more quickly if he/she is in the database. Con's - Violates 4th, 5th, & 14th amendment. - Would likely increase acquittal or dismissal rate and decrease conviction rate. - Might cause law enforcement to rely on databases of DNA. - Not all criminals will be in said database. - DNA can be altered or can break down after time, so in the situation of cold cases, your crime scene DNA may be useless. - Most, if not all, laboratories are extremely flooded. They have to process DNA, fibers, prints, blood, etc. and just simply cannot do it all. This is also coming from someone who is interested in the criminal justice field and is getting an AAS in it. I do hope to someday become a police officer, or at least help law enforcement in some way. This particular topic hasn't come up yet though, but if it does that will make for an interesting class. Sorry about the length. It might be a bit longer than you wanted. Also, I apologize if something sounds awkward, confusing, or repetitive -- it's kind of late here. XD I hope your assignment goes well.

Lonleycarrots · October 2010

PrinceSushi wrote:

I've taken law enforcement classes, and may one day enter into law enforcement, so I have had to think about this. I do find D.N.A. to be very important, but it's not practical to take D.N.A. from everyone, especially for petty crimes like a DUI, assault, or theft. From a strictly non-opinionated view point, many U.S. labs are already insanely backlogged on processing D.N.A. For my state alone it's estimate to take something like decades(I don't remember the exact amount of time, but it was shocking) for them to process what has just been collected thus far, without including what is being collected everyday. I know they've made improvements, and are still trying to make more, but they've got a lot more work to do, and that's only in regards to the current crimes that require D.N.A. testing. Do I think D.N.A. should be taken upon all arrests? No. Someone who makes the bad choice to drive while a little intoxicated, or someone who is mad at a partner and throws a shoe is it highly unlikely to go an kidnap a child, and thus there is no point in taking their D.N.A. because it will only add onto backlogs. Name, prints, etc. is enough for this, while D.N.A. would just be working hard, not smart. Do I think D.N.A. should be taken upon certain arrests? Yes. Any crime committed where D.N.A. could prove valuable should require that all of those arrested for said crime should submit D.N.A. samples with or without consent. Honestly, I've seen this argued every which way, and both sides have flaws if you follow them extremely. From my point of view, the very best option is somewhere in the middle, or close to what we currently use.

Sigh same here, I did more reasearch and now im stuck in the middle as weel /: Youve got exellent points as well!

Lonleycarrots · October 2010

My dads a defense atternoy and he just gave my an hour long talk on everything anastatia said, accept in a very very unhappy tone. Im offically on the other side now, I didnt relize all the cons! (;

Howdy, Stranger!

D.N.A upon arrest

Comments