• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

Personally, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the existing precedent. For right or for wrong, because of the long-standing precedent, it has to be included in the discussion.

Precedent isnt law. Precedent is the decision of one specific case under specific circumstances and needs to be treated as such rather than be treated as gospel for all cases as the courts do now.
 
Not a big fan here of databasing the non-convicted. I don't trust the government or corporations with my DNA, not when they are on a mission to usurp our rights and corrupt due process. When a suspect is booked we already take their fingerprints. Why is DNA is necessary? We used to have to subpoena people for that kind of thing, now the police just take it automatically?

It's not that the police are necessarily untrustworthy, but in a polity that defers to the rights and liberties of the individual, they should be treated as such. We should assume that any government agency collecting this DNA has security flaws or is capable of corrupt and insidious manipulation; or in the least, we should assume that the process has unknown drawbacks. Why? Because then we err on the side of individual rights.

SCOTUS has been handing down really questionable decisions in the past few months.
 
Talk to SCOTUS. It was their decision, not mine. But I support it.

Dodge noted

You specifically said "at birth". No suspicion of having committed a crime. Nothing. The Government has a right to your body, your physical blueprint, at birth. Just because 5 lawyers in black robes make a decision doesn't make it right. By your logic Dred Scott should have never been nullified.
 
Do you know how many swabs they take? Do you know what tests can be done from a single swab?
I know that sequencing a person's entire DNA, and then running two dozen tests on it, is:
• expensive
• time-consuming
• nowhere near as informative as most people presume
• takes up tons of storage space
• isn't what law enforcement needs or uses
• has no functionality whatsoever

Conflating fake fears of things that won't happen is not a persuasive rhetorical maneuver.
 
When a suspect is booked we already take their fingerprints. Why is DNA is necessary?
Because it's significantly more effective than fingerprints.

Oh, and let's not forget that it's frequently used to clear people of charges. If DNA is collected at the time of arrest, it could result in exonerating innocent people much earlier in the process.


We used to have to subpoena people for that kind of thing, now the police just take it automatically?
If you're arrested for a serious felony, yes. That is what has changed.


We should assume that any government agency collecting this DNA has security flaws or is capable of corrupt and insidious manipulation....
Requiring a warrant before collecting DNA doesn't have any effect on this at all.

And any defense attorney has the power to question the credibility of DNA evidence in court.
 
I know that sequencing a person's entire DNA, and then running two dozen tests on it, is:
• expensive
• time-consuming
• nowhere near as informative as most people presume
• takes up tons of storage space
• isn't what law enforcement needs or uses
• has no functionality whatsoever

Conflating fake fears of things that won't happen is not a persuasive rhetorical maneuver.

Perhaps now, such DNA testing may be as you suggest - who's to say it will always be that way? And since this now appears to be a constitutional right for law enforcement, is it necessarily a fake fear if all those impediments you threw up are irrelevant 10, 15, 20 years from now?
 
If you're arrested for a serious felony, yes. That is what has changed.

What difference does that make? They are still taking it against your will on arrest and it's still part of your body.

Requiring a warrant before collecting DNA doesn't have any effect on this at all.

And any defense attorney has the power to question the credibility of DNA evidence in court.

Questioning something that is pretty legal for the police to do has no effect.
 
Perhaps now, such DNA testing may be as you suggest - who's to say it will always be that way?
Basic awareness of medicine, for starters. You can't detect viruses, infections or communicable diseases with a DNA test.

Basic logic is up next. Law enforcement has absolutely no need to test for genetic predispositions for BRCA.

Basic logic continues with the fact that if they arrest and DNA test enough of the population for this to be misused by other branches of government, we're already in a police state, and a pesky thing like the 4th Amendment won't stop them.


And since this now appears to be a constitutional right for law enforcement, is it necessarily a fake fear if all those impediments you threw up are irrelevant 10, 15, 20 years from now?
Yes.

The question is whether this qualifies as an "unreasonable search and seizure." Hyping things that won't happen does not clarify that issue.
 
What difference does that make? They are still taking it against your will on arrest and it's still part of your body.
It's not an invasive procedure like a blood test. It's like fingerprints, but more effective.


Questioning something that is pretty legal for the police to do has no effect.
Incorrect. There are plenty of potential grounds for a defense attorney to pursue, ranging from efficacy of the test, quality of the lab, whether protocols were in fact followed, and if a legitimate reason can explain the presence of the DNA.

In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for police to get a warrant for a DNA test, or to legally obtain the suspect's DNA (e.g. going through the suspect's trash). All this ruling does is lower the bar a small amount.

And considering that DNA can exonerate as well as provide evidence, and is far more precise than fingerprints, I'm not seeing this ruling as a bad thing.
 
This is a violation of 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights.Swabbing for DNA is a search and it is basically forcing someone to testify against themselves. An arrest doesn't equal guilt.You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court of law.Innocent people should not have their constitutional rights violated without a warrant.

It's a fair point, I'm just not sold. Why is it okay to have a fingerprint database? You fingerprint people for crime A, and then search it from crime B. It's kind of unreasonable to require the government to suspect someone before they compare their fingerprints from a list. It's also kind of unamerican to have a list that's only people who have been accused, not people who have been convicted.

I like Maggies idea. Take a DNA swab at birth and put it on file. People are going to be much less likely to commit a crime if they know that they'll be caught if they leave so much as a hair behind.
 
It's not an invasive procedure like a blood test. It's like fingerprints, but more effective.

Invasive or not the government has no right to take something from my body against my will.

Incorrect. There are plenty of potential grounds for a defense attorney to pursue, ranging from efficacy of the test, quality of the lab, whether protocols were in fact followed, and if a legitimate reason can explain the presence of the DNA.

Not exactly the best defense 90% of the time.

In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for police to get a warrant for a DNA test, or to legally obtain the suspect's DNA (e.g. going through the suspect's trash). All this ruling does is lower the bar a small amount.

Again, I already said I don't agree with the trash nonsense, but I see no reason why they would ever use a warrant from now on. Just do whatever the hell you want and take it.
 
I have no problem with it. I think people's DNA should be taken at birth.

We are irreconcilably opposed. The government has no business taking DNA without consent or warrant. I am even more opposed to DNA being taken at birth by government entities. Mind you I have MY DNA on file with the DOD and DOS. They have it with my express consent.
 
I like Maggies idea. Take a DNA swab at birth and put it on file. People are going to be much less likely to commit a crime if they know that they'll be caught if they leave so much as a hair behind.

A lot of place take a newborns foot prints and finger prints right at the hospital. It won't be long before everyones prints will be on file.
 
It's a fair point, I'm just not sold. Why is it okay to have a fingerprint database? You fingerprint people for crime A, and then search it from crime B. It's kind of unreasonable to require the government to suspect someone before they compare their fingerprints from a list. It's also kind of unamerican to have a list that's only people who have been accused, not people who have been convicted.

I like Maggies idea. Take a DNA swab at birth and put it on file. People are going to be much less likely to commit a crime if they know that they'll be caught if they leave so much as a hair behind.

I do not think there should be a database period.
 
A lot of place take a newborns foot prints and finger prints right at the hospital. It won't be long before everyones prints will be on file.

That's horrible. Can't even keep your property for a day. Shame.
 
I do not think there should be a database period.

I definitely approve the consistency, but aren't all rights a tradeoff? Wouldn't a universal DNA database make it less likely that I'd be investigated unless I committed a crime? Wouldn't that increase my privacy?
 
I definitely approve the consistency, but aren't all rights a tradeoff? Wouldn't a universal DNA database make it less likely that I'd be investigated unless I committed a crime? Wouldn't that increase my privacy?

No, rights are not trade offs.
 
That's horrible. Can't even keep your property for a day. Shame.

They tell you it is to avoid mix-ups and giving the wrong baby to the wrong person. I would think there are other ways to insure that but what do I know.
 
I definitely approve the consistency, but aren't all rights a tradeoff?

Nope.

Wouldn't a universal DNA database make it less likely that I'd be investigated unless I committed a crime?

No it wouldn't.Not all criminals leave finger prints or DNA. Not all finger prints or DNA collected from crime scenes are whole finger prints or whole DNA.If anything a database would make it easier for someone to plant your biometric information at a crime scene. Even then that stuff if circumstantial,for example a finger print on a shell casing proves you touched it it, does not prove you loaded the bullet into the gun and it most certainly doesn't prove you fired the gun.

Wouldn't that increase my privacy?

So you are suggesting that we should give up personal information in hopes that the police won't investigate us for anything? In that case lets mandate GPS in our cars and tracking chips in everyone.
 
They tell you it is to avoid mix-ups and giving the wrong baby to the wrong person. I would think there are other ways to insure that but what do I know.

Like name tags for one or names on the individual little beds.
 
Because you would be smart enough to know they could be eaisly switched or the babies mixed up.

Ok, so what is the solution besides taking their fingerprints, which the state nor the hospital has a right towards.
 
Grab bag babies? I dont know, this sounds like paranoia to me.
Ok, so what is the solution besides taking their fingerprints, which the state nor the hospital has a right towards.
 
Back
Top Bottom