• 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

apdst said:
By that logic, fingerprints should only be accessible under a warrant. We can't have it both ways, is my point.
Click to expand...

Perhaps every citizen should be finger printed, swabbed and photographed from every angle and entered into a database for future crime tracking. Why should only the guy who may have been falsely arrested, or arrested by mistake, be exposed to the full monty and not every other citizen of the country? Maybe the police suspect a guy of some crime and so they arrest him for jay-walking and then give him the full treatment in the hopes of snagging him on the bigger charge. It sounds like a great boon for police in fighting crime but police have courts as a check to ensure they don't abuse their power - this is just another erosion of those checks.
 
clownboy said:
What's the rule in Canada?
Click to expand...

In Canada, only after conviction of a crime is it legal for police to take a DNA sample and they don't take it in all cases - it's about 50% in serious offenses and 20% in less serious ones.
 
Visbek said:
If I'm reading the decision correctly, it's limited to felony arrests. So unless your hypothetical protestor assaults a cop or shatters a shop window, they won't get swabbed.
Click to expand...

Simple Assault on Law Enforcement isn't even a felony... nor is the mere act of shattering a shop window with no intent or purpose to go inside to steal stuff.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps every citizen should be finger printed, swabbed and photographed from every angle and entered into a database for future crime tracking. Why should only the guy who may have been falsely arrested, or arrested by mistake, be exposed to the full monty and not every other citizen of the country? Maybe the police suspect a guy of some crime and so they arrest him for jay-walking and then give him the full treatment in the hopes of snagging him on the bigger charge. It sounds like a great boon for police in fighting crime but police have courts as a check to ensure they don't abuse their power - this is just another erosion of those checks.
Click to expand...

Simple solution: those people's records should be destroyed. It may already be that way; I don't know.
 
CanadaJohn said:
In Canada, only after conviction of a crime is it legal for police to take a DNA sample and they don't take it in all cases - it's about 50% in serious offenses and 20% in less serious ones.
Click to expand...

That makes DNA sampling purdy much useless.
 
Arrested, let go without prosecution for a crime, DNA is permanently owned by the state.

And the Bill of Rights gets pushed a little further into the shredder.
 
MaggieD said:
I have no problem with it. I think people's DNA should be taken at birth.
Click to expand...

The attorney general makes a great case for being able to get a hit on previous cases, such as rape, by using DNA. Currently our rape prosecution statistics are appalling, so anything that makes it easier to try and convict rapists or other serious offenders is perfectly A-ok with me. Taking a swab of DNA is no different then using a fingerprint or a mugshot.
 
apdst said:
Simple solution: those people's records should be destroyed. It may already be that way; I don't know.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't bother me so much at all if part of the ruling was that if not convicted or if charges are dropped, the DNA evidence must be destroyed so it cannot be used in other investigations and it cannot be used in any other cases other than the one for which the person has been charged until such time as a conviction is reached.
 
apdst said:
Simple solution: those people's records should be destroyed. It may already be that way; I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think police departments will fight tooth and nail to keep those records.
 
Hatuey said:
I think police departments will fight tooth and nail to keep those records.
Click to expand...

Can they already keep those records on file, if someone is falsely arrested?
 
MaggieD said:
I have no problem with it. I think people's DNA should be taken at birth.
Click to expand...

Your DNA isn't private property?

You truly believe the police can seize your private property at birth?
 
apdst said:
That makes DNA sampling purdy much useless.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and we don't have the extensive DNA database that the US has but they are working on it - it's not a well managed nationwide system and pretty much hit and miss now.
 
Bronson said:
Your DNA isn't private property?

You truly believe the police can seize your private property at birth?
Click to expand...

They took my footprint. Parents often take and store DNA samples. It's just one more form of identification, in my opinion. No big deal.

So many people just automatically make a freakin' deal out of things. It will help solve crimes. It will help identify bodies. It will establish paternity (taking babies' DNA, that is). They've taken fingerprints for years; nobody's dropped over dead because of it. Lighten up.
 
ReformCollege said:
The attorney general makes a great case for being able to get a hit on previous cases, such as rape, by using DNA. Currently our rape prosecution statistics are appalling, so anything that makes it easier to try and convict rapists or other serious offenders is perfectly A-ok with me. Taking a swab of DNA is no different then using a fingerprint or a mugshot.
Click to expand...
You are not photographed or fingerprinted without arrest.

For a libertarian, you have some funny views on privacy/4th Amendments rights.
 
clownboy said:
Fingerprint records aren't.
Click to expand...

In the UK, the police can take all of these samples and retain them indefinitely whether a person is convicted of a crime or not.

Here in Canada, courts have ruled that people have the right to request that records be destroyed if charges did not result in a conviction.
 
MaggieD said:
They took my footprint. Parents often take and store DNA samples. It's just one more form of identification, in my opinion. No big deal.
Click to expand...
Prior to 18, your parents "owned" your rights, they gave permission.

So many people just automatically make a freakin' deal out of things. It will help solve crimes. It will help identify bodies. It will establish paternity (taking babies' DNA, that is). They've taken fingerprints for years; nobody's dropped over dead because of it. Lighten up.
Click to expand...
You are mixing up parental rights and 4th Amendment rights of adults.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Prior to 18, your parents "owned" your rights, they gave permission.

You are mixing up parental rights and 4th Amendment rights of adults.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right. My comparison was a bad one. My second paragraph, though, expresses my thoughts about the OP.
 
I do have another issue with this, and it's not necessarily related to crime, but let's say a person is arrested and a DNA sample is taken and it's discovered through testing that the individual has AIDS or some other communicable disease. What are the obligations morally/legally/public health wise to not only inform the individual but to also inform public health officials and other authorities or even that individual's immediate family? What is the liability if they don't?
 
apdst said:
Can they already keep those records on file, if someone is falsely arrested?
Click to expand...

I really don't see why they couldn't. Are they allowed to keep fingerprints of people who've been arrested and later had the charges dropped? If they are, the same kind of framework would also be admisible here.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not photographed or fingerprinted without arrest.

For a libertarian, you have some funny views on privacy/4th Amendments rights.
Click to expand...

Uh, the article headline was "police can collect DNA from arrestees....." So as I was saying, yeah people who are arrested should be able to have their DNA swabbed just like they are fingerprinted and photographed.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes, I think you're right. My comparison was a bad one. My second paragraph, though, expresses my thoughts about the OP.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a complete dissembling of protections of privacy, without arrest the govt can collect the most private part of an individual.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

i agree. i'd probably support it if it were post-conviction, but anyone can be arrested for anything. it's a warrantless search.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not photographed or fingerprinted without arrest.

For a libertarian, you have some funny views on privacy/4th Amendments rights.
Click to expand...

The court ruling concerns the taking of DNA samples on arrest, too. What's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom