• 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!

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest | Threat Level | Wired.com

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

...

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.
Click to expand...

More:

President Barack Obama’s embrace of a national database to store the DNA of people arrested but not necessarily convicted of a crime is heartening to backers of the policy but disappointing to criminal-justice reformers, who view it as an invasion of privacy.

Others also worry the practice would adversely affect minorities.

In an interview aired Saturday on “America’s Most Wanted,” Obama expressed strong agreement as host John Walsh extolled the virtues of collecting DNA at the time of an arrest and putting it into a single, national database.

...

“It’s a horrible idea — tremendously invasive,” said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who also disputed Walsh’s claim that DNA is no different from fingerprints.

“It’s like a hair sample, looking at your health care records and everything else,” Quigley said. “It’s like giving a blank check to the government — a blank check they can cash anytime they feel like it.”

In a provocative report two years ago, titled “Building Jim Crow’s Database,” Small and other critics charged that DNA-upon-arrest provisions disproportionately affect minorities because they are more likely to be arrested, even if not convicted.

“It’s racially incredibly skewed,” she said.
Click to expand...


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

More:

Interesting to see. This is another fairly large break from what many assumed (fairly or not) would be Obama's approach toward privacy rights and the procedures used in criminal prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Supporting DNA sampling is pretty reasonable, based on my understanding of the practice. It has a relatively low impact on a law-abiding person's private life and enables the government to apprehend repeat offenders with comparative ease. Also, it hasn't become a solely liberal or solely conservative viewpoint yet.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Supporting DNA sampling is pretty reasonable, based on my understanding of the practice. It has a relatively low impact on a law-abiding person's private life and enables the government to apprehend repeat offenders with comparative ease. Also, it hasn't become a solely liberal or solely conservative viewpoint yet.
Click to expand...

The SC has upheld it in relation to convicted felons, but that's much different than applying to everyone arrested of any crime, even if they're not eventually prosecuted for it. It's not a liberal v. conservative issue, it's a civil libertarian v. supporter of government authority issue.
 
RightinNYC said:
The SC has upheld it in relation to convicted felons, but that's much different than applying to everyone arrested of any crime, even if they're not eventually prosecuted for it. It's not a liberal v. conservative issue, it's a civil libertarian v. supporter of government authority issue.
Click to expand...

How about this, if the case is dismissed or not prosecuted, the DNA is destroyed.

But then again, I don't trust the Federal government or state governments to actually do this properly. Record retention, destruction and organization aren't things they do well.
 
obvious Child said:
How about this, if the case is dismissed or not prosecuted, the DNA is destroyed.

But then again, I don't trust the Federal government or state governments to actually do this properly. Record retention, destruction and organization aren't things they do well.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I was about to ask.

Could you really trust them to do that.
I know I don't.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea, that's what I was about to ask.

Could you really trust them to do that.
I know I don't.
Click to expand...

Some records are okay. Parking tickets? Sure. My genetic history? No.

Someone hacks in and gets my parking tickets. Big fricken deal. Getting my personal financial? Hell No. But then again, private industry isn't any better with that.
 
I am not sure on this whole topic, but...isn't this just basically the direct descendant of fingerprinting? Isn't it done for the same reason? If so, how is this different?
 
Redress said:
I am not sure on this whole topic, but...isn't this just basically the direct descendant of fingerprinting? Isn't it done for the same reason? If so, how is this different?
Click to expand...

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

It's the same general concept, but it allows for much further intrusion. It's like saying that just because an officer who looks through your window and sees you breaking the law can enter the house and arrest you, the government should be able to use cameras to look at everyone's windows at all times.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's the same general concept, but it allows for much further intrusion. It's like saying that just because an officer who looks through your window and sees you breaking the law can enter the house and arrest you, the government should be able to use cameras to look at everyone's windows at all times.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for the clarification.
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest | Threat Level | Wired.com



More:




President Obama backs DNA test in arrests - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

More:

Interesting to see. This is another fairly large break from what many assumed (fairly or not) would be Obama's approach toward privacy rights and the procedures used in criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

Aren't they talking about violent offenses and sex offenses?

I don't think jaywalkers are going to be swabbed...

If you're pulled over for drunk driving, you either breath, bleed or pee. Remember these people haven't been convicted yet. In fact, those tests are what is most likely going get them off.

If you're arrested for a sex offense, or other violent crime, we should tag you like an animal--get your DNA and see what else you may have been up to. Get some laws on the books compelling those arrested or indicted for sex offenses and violent crimes to say ahh... If your DNA doesn't match the victim or match the DNA found at the crime, then it's case closed.

Of course, this raises an interesting self-incrimination question. What if it matches the DNA from 5 other crimes?
 
hazlnut said:
Aren't they talking about violent offenses and sex offenses?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - in some states it includes (or is proposed to include) all arrests including misdemeanors.

If you're pulled over for drunk driving, you either breath, bleed or pee. Remember these people haven't been convicted yet. In fact, those tests are what is most likely going get them off.
Click to expand...

Except that's very, very different. You can't use someone's BAC to track them in a database.

If you're arrested for a sex offense, or other violent crime, we should tag you like an animal--get your DNA and see what else you may have been up to. Get some laws on the books compelling those arrested or indicted for sex offenses and violent crimes to say ahh... If your DNA doesn't match the victim or match the DNA found at the crime, then it's case closed.
Click to expand...

So you're saying they should take the DNA and then delete all records of it if they can't get a conviction?
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest | Threat Level | Wired.com



More:




President Obama backs DNA test in arrests - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

More:

Interesting to see. This is another fairly large break from what many assumed (fairly or not) would be Obama's approach toward privacy rights and the procedures used in criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what gave people the idea that Obama considered privacy and civil liberties to be his priorities. I knew what he was the moment he voted in favor of warrantless wiretaps. But at the voting booth it was him or Palin, so what do you want from me?:shrug:
 
obvious Child said:
Some records are okay. Parking tickets? Sure. My genetic history? No.

Someone hacks in and gets my parking tickets. Big fricken deal. Getting my personal financial? Hell No. But then again, private industry isn't any better with that.
Click to expand...

Yea that doesn't bother me about the tickets.

On the other hand I'd be pretty pissed about my DNA profile be stolen.
Just recently I've found out that DNA can be faked pretty easily.
 
Redress said:
I am not sure on this whole topic, but...isn't this just basically the direct descendant of fingerprinting? Isn't it done for the same reason? If so, how is this different?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be finger printing unless the person is convicted or the need to use it to solve something related to the crime.
That is my feelings on it.

If a person is cleared or has served their complete sentence, that needs to be destroyed.
 
hazlnut said:
If you're arrested for a sex offense, or other violent crime, we should tag you like an animal--get your DNA and see what else you may have been up to. Get some laws on the books compelling those arrested or indicted for sex offenses and violent crimes to say ahh... If your DNA doesn't match the victim or match the DNA found at the crime, then it's case closed.

Of course, this raises an interesting self-incrimination question. What if it matches the DNA from 5 other crimes?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the presumption of innocence? People aren't guilty of a crime until they've been convicted of the crime in a court of law.

Good grief. We need to start teaching civics classes in schools again. And REQUIRING THEM.
 
I'm all for it. Don't like it? Don't **** up and get arrested.
 
Bush III.

And you guys keep saying he's a socialist...
 
A horrible idea. Being convicted of a crime is completely different than being arrested. Many many people are arrested without ever being charged, much less convicted. This basically means the government can collect DNA on whoever they feel like it without any due process.
 
Another disappointment out of the Obama Administration. Why do I keep letting myself get sold on the idea that the next President will be better, when he ultimately never is?

I don't support DNA sampling from suspects, but it's okay from convicted criminals; just like I don't support fingerprinting from suspects. This is an innocent until proven guilty system. Your biometric data shouldn't be taken unless you are convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom