• 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

AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not seeing a similar outrage over that practice...
Click to expand...

Fingerprints don't open up the door to the same relationship capabilities that DNA does.

We see the IRS targeting certain groups based on little more than the name of the organization they formed and keyword tracking is common across the internet for commercial as well as investigative purposes. Once this database starts to build there is likely to be more and more "need" to keep the database up to date as well as to fill in various "blanks". It should make most people more than a little concerned that all of this data is being compiled even though there is no immediate need for the government to have that information.

The absolute LAST thing we want to do is to give the government carte blanche to accumulate personal information without very good and very limited reason for doing so. The potential for abuse is simply too dangerous.
 
apdst said:
So what?
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

. .
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not following your reply...
Click to expand...

Read the amendment in question again..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

It is talking about searches and seizures which means very clearly applies ALL searches and seizures. It makes no difference if such and such search and seizure is harmless or not. Your argument is entirely immaterial.

Btw, this ruling also flies in the face of the fifth and fourteenth amendment.
 
Helix said:
. .
Click to expand...

That is not how I would have answered it. DNA tells the state whatever they need to know about the individual in question from their weaknesses to their strengths.
 
Lutherf said:
Fingerprints don't open up the door to the same relationship capabilities that DNA does.

We see the IRS targeting certain groups based on little more than the name of the organization they formed and keyword tracking is common across the internet for commercial as well as investigative purposes. Once this database starts to build there is likely to be more and more "need" to keep the database up to date as well as to fill in various "blanks". It should make most people more than a little concerned that all of this data is being compiled even though there is no immediate need for the government to have that information.

The absolute LAST thing we want to do is to give the government carte blanche to accumulate personal information without very good and very limited reason for doing so. The potential for abuse is simply too dangerous.
Click to expand...

The government only does what is allowed by the governed. I believe this country is too large and to diversified to continue in its existence. We are no longer the nation of our founding where the vast majority shares a common belief or even morality. I can't say what will come in the future, but I no longer see that shining city on the hill or any politician capable of leading the country there...
 
Henrin said:
Read the amendment in question again..



It is talking about searches and seizures which means very clearly applies ALL searches and seizures. It makes no difference if such and such search and seizure is harmless or not. Your argument is entirely immaterial.

Btw, this ruling also flies in the face of the fifth and fourteenth amendment.
Click to expand...

There is no search nor seizure except that subsequent to a lawful arrest for identification purposes...
 
Helix said:
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?
Click to expand...

I kinda agree, but only because the practice is done with people arrested for a serious crime. Now if they did this for shoplifting, jaywalking, smoking a joint or consuming drugs then I would be a against it. Only in the case of organized crime, violent crime or sex crimes should DNA be taken from suspects, in minor cases it should not.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There is no search nor seizure except that subsequent to a lawful arrest for identification purposes...
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say they are having trouble identifying the arrestee, and their purpose is to establish the person's name?
 
Henrin said:
That is not how I would have answered it. DNA tells the state whatever they need to know about the individual in question from their weaknesses to their strengths.
Click to expand...

the furthering of warrantless searches is enough for me to be skeptical of this decision.
 
Peter King said:
I kinda agree, but only because the practice is done with people arrested for a serious crime. Now if they did this for shoplifting, jaywalking, smoking a joint or consuming drugs then I would be a against it. Only in the case of organized crime, violent crime or sex crimes should DNA be taken from suspects, in minor cases it should not.
Click to expand...

but if it's only to be used for a specific class of crimes, how difficult would be to get a warrant?
 
Dezaad said:
Are you trying to say they are having trouble identifying the arrestee, and their purpose is to establish the person's name?
Click to expand...

That's what fingerprints are currently used to confirm...
 
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.

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...

Sorry I won't "lighten up". Apparently the whole "my body my choice" rhetoric only applies if you're murdering an innocent child in the womb. What right does the Government have to your body? Your DNA is your matter. It's not an imprint like a cast or ink smudged on paper. It's literally your cells. It is your physical blueprint. Clones can be made from DNA. Without a warrant what right does the Government have to extract cells and DNA from your body without your consent if you have not committed a serious crime? If you are under no suspicion of having committed a crime the Government can confiscate your DNA at birth? Really? You specifically stated the Government has a right to DNA just for a human being born. Your response to giving Government that authority over your body is "lighten up"? Are you kidding me right now?

If a parent wants to take a DNA sample and store it on their own, that is their right as parents. The Government is not your mommy and daddy however.

If you believe in The Constitution how could you possibly come to the conclusion that the Government has a right to your body just for being born.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The government only does what is allowed by the governed. I believe this country is too large and to diversified to continue in its existence. We are no longer the nation of our founding where the vast majority shares a common belief or even morality. I can't say what will come in the future, but I no longer see that shining city on the hill or any politician capable of leading the country there...
Click to expand...

That's a WHOLE different subject but suffice it to say that at the time of the founding of the nation there was ample disagreement with regard to political beliefs and morality even among those who penned the founding documents. I certainly don't believe that we have become too big for this form of government but, rather, have become too complacent in our acceptance of it.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
That's what fingerprints are currently used to confirm...
Click to expand...

Which is a search and seizure. Why do you believe that you can fall back on something that falls into the same exactly crater? I realize the court did the same, but there is a reason the logic is faulty.
 
Helix said:
but if it's only to be used for a specific class of crimes, how difficult would be to get a warrant?
Click to expand...

I would rather have it this way because this way it does not become a "point of view" case. Because let us theorize that someone is arrested and the lawyer goes to the judge and say they could have asked for a warrant and they the DNA that proves my client raped 150 women and killed 10 women is thrown out of that kind of a technicality. I say no, if a person is arrested without a warrant and is found to be a serious criminal due to DNA evidence that they find due to his DNA being taken then I would say that is no problem for me. If he hadn't committed a crime he would have never been found by DNA found at an arrest without a warrant, so tough luck and not a problem for me.
 
Bronson said:
Sorry I won't "lighten up". Apparently the whole "my body my choice" rhetoric only applies if you're murdering an innocent child in the womb. What right does the Government have to your body? Your DNA is your matter. It's not an imprint like a cast or ink smudged on paper. It's literally your cells. It is your physical blueprint. Clones can be made from DNA. Without a warrant what right does the Government have to extract cells and DNA from your body without your consent if you have not committed a serious crime? If you are under no suspicion of having committed a crime the Government can confiscate your DNA at birth? Really? You specifically stated the Government has a right to DNA just for a human being born. Your response to giving Government that authority over your body is "lighten up"? Are you kidding me right now?

If a parent wants to take a DNA sample and store it on their own, that is their right as parents. The Government is not your mommy and daddy however.

If you believe in The Constitution how could you possibly come to the conclusion that the Government has a right to your body just for being born.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything here except that its the rights of the parents to take a DNA sample.
 
Henrin said:
Which is a search and seizure. Why do you believe that you can fall back on something that falls into the same exactly crater? I realize the court did the same, but there is a reason the logic is faulty.
Click to expand...

I'm most likely more about individual freedoms than you are, but I have zero problem with police being given reasonable investigative powers to prove guilt or innocence...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm most likely more about individual freedoms than you are, but I have zero problem with police being given reasonable investigative powers to prove guilt or innocence...
Click to expand...

I highly doubt you are more about individual freedoms than I am. I'm actually outraged by personal freedoms being violated, while you are just like "is it harmful?". :roll: Like that even matters.
 
Henrin said:
I highly doubt you are more about individual freedoms than I am. I'm actually outraged by personal freedoms being violated, while you are just like "is it harmful?". :roll: Like that even matters.
Click to expand...

No, I'm about trying to gather the most conclusive evidence as to a person's guilt or innocence as to the commission of a crime. Since the reliability of DNA has been proven, many have been released from prison for crimes not committed. You, it seems, would rather return to the days of circumstantial evidence being the most prevalent...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, I'm about trying to gather the most conclusive evidence as to a person's guilt or innocence as to the commission of a crime. Since the reliability of DNA has been proven, many have been released from prison for crimes not committed. You, it seems, would rather return to the days of circumstantial evidence being the most prevalent...
Click to expand...

If I've been arrested and I'm innocent, I'm going to demand they take a DNA sample.
 
apdst said:
If I've been arrested and I'm innocent, I'm going to demand they take a DNA sample.
Click to expand...

Then demand it. How is that even hard? Why do you have to pull everyone along for the ride for something you can easily do yourself?
 
Henrin said:
I agree with everything here except that its the rights of the parents to take a DNA sample.
Click to expand...

That is the only grey area for me where I would need to give it more thought. There are certain rights parents have over their children before they are age 18. That child is a product of the parents DNA. (adoptions ect obviously would not have the same right to that child's DNA that their biological parents potentially have. Again I'm undecided). That's certainly an enormous Pandora's box that would need to be explored I agree with you. I'm on the fence with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom