• 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!

ACLU Says Extracting DNA From Suspects Unconstitutional

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, to me, to not be worried about DNA being kept on file, but to be worried about gun information kept on file.
I see what you're saying now. I was approaching it from the point of view of being worried about both.
 
So basically your saying innocent people should have their DNA registered by the government?
 
Nobody can steal your fingerprints or DNA and use it to commit a crime.

FYI earlier this year researchers showed that DNA evidence can be faked using equipment that any undergraduate molecular biology major has access to. They sent a sample to a crime lab to whom the sample looked legitimate.

Link
 
The theory behind storing away everybody's information is that people who are arrested once will very likely be arrested again. Completely innocent people usually aren't arrested, so even if a person is arrested, chances are it is in connection to a habit or lifestyle that merits detainment in the future. That's not to say 'lots' of people who are arrested aren't victims of circumstance, only that a majority are involved in illegalities to some extent most of the time. Just not to the point you could get a conviction this time around.
 
Last edited:
The theory behind storing away everybody's information is that people who are arrested once will very likely be arrested again. Completely innocent people usually aren't arrested, so even if a person is arrested, chances are it is in connection to a habit or lifestyle that merits detainment in the future. That's not to say 'lots' of people who are arrested aren't victims of circumstance, only that a majority are involved in illegalities to some extent most of the time. Just not to the point you could get a conviction this time around.

We have a belief in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore there is no need to store the DNA or fingerprints of innocent people.
 
Fair enough. Your thoughts?
I would like a system wherein the government keeps on file the DNA of violent criminals only. I would also like a system where those samples taken from individuals in the course of an investigation are destroyed for those people who are exonerated. I would also like a system where samples are taken only in a manner comporting with the strict letter of the Fourth Amendment. Whether any of these systems are in place I do not know.

As to the military keeping a database of DNA records, that's probably a good idea if the registry is voluntary and the individual's records are destroyed upon separation from the service or upon request.

As to the idea of the government keeping data on firearms, I'm definitely against that. I think some jurisdictions require submitting a fired round from guns that are purchased within its bounds, and I believe there is enough doubt in the accuracy of firearms "fingerprinting" to make this sort of thing a colossal waste of resources at the very least. I oppose the government having any information on the number and/or type of firearm(s) owned by individuals for privacy reasons.
 
Apples and oranges, my friend.
Not in the sense that the question is, where does the power end? If they grab one thing, what limits them from incrementally grabbing something else? That's my main concern. You can see what liberalism has done, they incrementally turned us into a welfare state.
 
Well, I thouoght DNA samples of all new borns were stored "somewhere" for identification should they be involved in a crime as a victim. I am not certain.
i don't think so.....
 
I would like a system wherein the government keeps on file the DNA of violent criminals only. I would also like a system where those samples taken from individuals in the course of an investigation are destroyed for those people who are exonerated. I would also like a system where samples are taken only in a manner comporting with the strict letter of the Fourth Amendment. Whether any of these systems are in place I do not know.

As to the military keeping a database of DNA records, that's probably a good idea if the registry is voluntary and the individual's records are destroyed upon separation from the service or upon request.

As to the idea of the government keeping data on firearms, I'm definitely against that. I think some jurisdictions require submitting a fired round from guns that are purchased within its bounds, and I believe there is enough doubt in the accuracy of firearms "fingerprinting" to make this sort of thing a colossal waste of resources at the very least. I oppose the government having any information on the number and/or type of firearm(s) owned by individuals for privacy reasons.

What would you consider reasonable and effective as a method to try to decrease gun-related deaths or to solve shooting deaths?
 
What would you consider reasonable and effective as a method to try to decrease gun-related deaths or to solve shooting deaths?
For prevention I'd like to see stricter sentencing for violent and repeat offenders, coupled with decriminalization of marijuana and the like, opening space up in prisons for those violent people who ought to be there. Nothing particularly innovative, I suppose.

As for solving, I don't know the answer to that. I suspect as the technology behind DNA and other scientific forensics progresses, it will become harder and harder to evade the police and win an acquittal. I think focusing on the firearm is the wrong direction to go as the best evidence a gun registry will ever give you is circumstantial evidence.
 
We have a belief in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore there is no need to store the DNA or fingerprints of innocent people.

But taking DNA is not inconsistent with that precept. While it implies you are risk factor for repeat crime, taking DNA cannot turn you from innocent to not innocent, it can only speed along the process by which your criminality or lack thereof is determined.

When the state reduces freedom for the sake of order, they tend to do it in those instances where people are less likely to care or come up with a good argument for why they should not. DNA only makes it easier to determine if you were involved in a crime scene, innocently or guiltily; it reveals nothing intimate about your person or character other than that. Since privacy is effected so minimally, and because it goes a long way toward preventing murder, rape, and theft, nobody is able to come up with a good argument for why the practice should be discontinued.
 
Back
Top Bottom