• 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

Grab bag babies? I dont know, this sounds like paranoia to me.

Paranoia? They are taking the fingerprints of children. I'm sorry, but that is the child's property and they did not consent for it to be taken.
 
Because you would be smart enough to know they could be eaisly switched or the babies mixed up.

Really? You think it's easy to remove those hospital wrist bands while the infants are all kept is a nursery visible to many people?
 
Ok, so what is the solution besides taking their fingerprints, which the state nor the hospital has a right towards.

I don't have a problem with it if the parents give their permission. Heck my children and grandchildren all had theirs taken.
 
No, rights are not trade offs.
Rights, as paper theory, are not trade offs. Life, as practical reality, is.


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.
At one time I advocated DNA collection at birth from all kids, mothers, and fathers. My reason was for determining paternity (including mothers also to be "fair and equal"), as many so-called family courts liked to stick child support payments on anyone listed as the father on a birth certificate.

Please note the beginning words in that paragraph: "At one time..."
 
I don't have a problem with it if the parents give their permission. Heck my children and grandchildren all had theirs taken.

It is not for the parents to give away. It is the child's fingerprints which is a part of their body and it is their right to keep private if that is what they desire. Since they can not make that decision the proper course of action is to keep it private.
 
At one time I advocated DNA collection at birth from all kids, mothers, and fathers. My reason was for determining paternity (including mothers also to be "fair and equal"), as many so-called family courts liked to stick child support payments on anyone listed as the father on a birth certificate.

Please note the beginning words in that paragraph: "At one time..."

I can see where they may be an argument there but to say, like many hospitals do, finger or footprints prevent mix ups is ridiculous. It's not like the nurse scans the infants prints before they leave the nursery to bring the child to your room.
 
It is not for the parents to give away. It is the child's fingerprints which is a part of their body and it is their right to keep private if that is what they desire.

No a parent is allowed to speak for the infant. The print they take is not part of their body any more than a photograph is part of their body. It's not like they cut the tip off that part of the body and keep it on file! :)
 
No a parent is allowed to speak for the infant. The print they take is not part of their body any more than a photograph is part of their body. It's not like they cut the tip off that part of the body and keep it on file! :)

It is unique to that individual and has almost nothing in common with a photo that anyone can pick up such information about you by simply looking at you.
 
It is unique to that individual and has almost nothing in common with a photo that anyone can pick up such information about you by simply looking at you.

You mean my big old nose isn't unique to me? Well that's a relief ;)
 
Because it's significantly more effective than fingerprints.

It also tells the government everything about your biological makeup. Your strengths, your weaknesses, some of your behaviors, what drugs work well on you, what ones could kill you, etc. It's not the same as fingerprints. It contains very private information.

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.

If people are innocent then let them volunteer their DNA willingly.

The State's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Proving innocence is your job if you're arrested. "Anything you say and do can be used against you." There is no law requiring police to work for your benefit.

Lawyers should be able to fight against the obtaining of DNA just like anything else. It's part of the defense process. It errs on the side of the rights and liberties of the individual.

If you're arrested for a serious felony, yes. That is what has changed.

If you want a suspect's DNA, get a subpoena or warrant. Their DNA is their personal property.

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

Yes it does... it protects people's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of their personal property.

It's easy to accuse anyone of a felony in this day and age. There are so many laws on the books. The SCOTUS ruling means that all the police have to do is accuse you, and they can take your DNA. This is wrong.

If they want your DNA, then they can prove how the DNA would be of use to police, and have enough suspicion to establish probable cause to get the warrant.

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

Due process does and always should begin before court.
 
Last edited:
It is not for the parents to give away. It is the child's fingerprints which is a part of their body and it is their right to keep private if that is what they desire. Since they can not make that decision the proper course of action is to keep it private.
No. By this reasoning a 6 yr old kid can choose to not go to school if they don't want to as that would be... to use libertarian buzzwords... "tyranny" and "slavery" :)roll:) even though the kid's parents told them to. Parents get to make decisions for their kids until a specified age.
 
For those against the idea of collecting and storing DNA upon arrest... and I'm not necessarily against you... how do you feel about collecting and storing upon conviction?

Does arrest vs conviction make a difference?
 
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?

That is absolute crap. Being arrested is not a conviction. You could be arrested for a traffic violation and they can take your DNA??? Screw that.

Also DNA can be used to convict you of a crime. They should need a warrant or probable cause. It's like taking away your right not to self incriminate.
 
Last edited:
For those against the idea of collecting and storing DNA upon arrest... and I'm not necessarily against you... how do you feel about collecting and storing upon conviction?

Does arrest vs conviction make a difference?

Conviction is OK, even a search warrant is OK. I mean for myself I don't care. In the military they took my DNA. So I am already on recorde no biggy. I just see this a a huge invasion of privacy without a conviction or volunteering for the military, police etc. Also as I said a legitimate search warrant.
 
Last edited:
No. By this reasoning a 6 yr old kid can choose to not go to school if they don't want to as that would be... to use libertarian buzzwords... "tyranny" and "slavery" :)roll:) even though the kid's parents told them to. Parents get to make decisions for their kids until a specified age.

That is a guidance issue, not a body sovereignty/privacy issue.
 
No, rights are not trade offs.

How so? I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to libel. There's a tradeoff. I have the right to carry arms, but I don't have the right to a machine gun. Unlimited rights are the same as no rights. In both cases, it's rule by the strong.
 
That is a guidance issue, not a body sovereignty/privacy issue.

They cut off the tip of boys talleywhackers before they even know how big it will be and you're worrying about fingerprints!!!! :)
 
How so? I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to libel. There's a tradeoff. I have the right to carry arms, but I don't have the right to a machine gun. Unlimited rights are the same as no rights. In both cases, it's rule by the strong.

Both of your examples are poor. You can not violate the right of someone else with speech. No, I do not accept the idea that we should punish mental harms nor do I find the idea that someone has to not have to deal with character assassination as legitimate either. You do not have the right to not be insulted and you surely do not have the right for everyone to know everything about you that is truthful. You just have to learn to defend yourself and get a backbone.

As for the second case, simply owning a certain types of gun does not violate the rights of anyone else, so clearly you have a right to such arms be that machine gun, an AR-15, or a glock. Simply owning an arm harms no one and acts towards no one. You might as well be saying that being gay causes everyone hardship. It's stupid.

Rights only come into conflict. There is no sort of compromise where one person has to give up something for someone else's safety or peace of mind. This is not a trade-off of sorts, but an understanding of where rights end and where they begin.
 
They cut off the tip of boys talleywhackers before they even know how big it will be and you're worrying about fingerprints!!!! :)

You clearly are not at all familiar with my posting history. I advocate the banning of that practice all the time. Ask ChrisL all about it if you want. I'm a goddamn asshole when it comes to that issue.
 
Both of your examples are poor. You can not violate the right of someone else with speech. No, I do not accept the idea that we should punish mental harms nor do I find the idea that someone has to not have to deal with character assassination as legitimate either. You do not have the right to not be insulted and you surely do not have the right for everyone to know everything about you that is truthful. You just have to learn to defend yourself and get a backbone.

As for the second case, simply owning a certain types of gun does not violate the rights of anyone else, so clearly you have a right to such arms be that machine gun, an AR-15, or a glock. Simply owning an arm harms no one and acts towards no one. You might as well be saying that being gay causes everyone hardship. It's stupid.

Rights only come into conflict. There is no sort of compromise where one person has to give up something for someone else's safety or peace of mind. This is not a trade-off of sorts, but an understanding of where rights end and where they begin.


As I said, all rights involve tradeoffs. They're not absolute.
 
For those against the idea of collecting and storing DNA upon arrest... and I'm not necessarily against you... how do you feel about collecting and storing upon conviction?

Does arrest vs conviction make a difference?

I would say for violent criminals, yes... because it would provide a means for determining their involvement in any potential future cases. For petty crime? Probably not. We don't need people's DNA to solve petty crime.

Convicted criminals become wards of the state, but they still have rights. I don't think carte-blache DNA collection of all criminals is justifiable. The U.S. has a bloated justice system right now, with so many laws on the books, and the highest number of prisoners per capita. Conviction in of itself should not mean automatic DNA collection, unless authorities can prove that the DNA could help the justice process in the future.

My point in my previous posts is that we should assume the government is going to abuse power, because that's what governments do in their nature. Our Founding Fathers knew it, which is why the Bill of Rights is worded like it is. We have to err on the side of the rights and liberties of the individual, always.

The government shouldn't get "automatic" right to do anything. It should have to prove itself at every stage, and not prove itself to itself, but prove itself to the People.

What SCOTUS ruled was statist, plain and simple. It eliminated one more piece of discernment from the system. It has said that DNA collection is justifiable in all cases, without review. That is dangerous.
 
That is absolute crap. Being arrested is not a conviction. You could be arrested for a traffic violation and they can take your DNA??? Screw that.

Also DNA can be used to convict you of a crime. They should need a warrant or probable cause. It's like taking away your right not to self incriminate.

i agree. i should point out, though, that this is for "serious" crimes, not traffic stops. either way, thanks for pointing out the fifth amendment issue; that one didn't occur to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom