[tyme]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-15-dna-usat_x.htm

Arrest but no conviction? Court records from juvenile criminal acts sealed? No problem, Bush would still have the government archive your DNA.

---
White House seeks to expand DNA database

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.

Under current law, only DNA from adults convicted of crimes can be placed in the national database, which is used to compare those samples with biological evidence from the scenes of unsolved crimes. As of January, there were about 1.3 million DNA samples in the database, U.S. officials say.

...

[DeltaElite]

We already take prints and pictures when you are arrested.
With the new technology, it is the next inevitable and logical step.
FWIW, my DNA is already on file along with my prints, part of the job.

Juvenile records should not be sealed upon adulthood, why should the little welps get a free ride after adulthood?
I wasn't a juvenile criminal, so why should a juvenile criminal and I both have a clean record upon adulthood?
Seems to be a disservice to me and society to give juvenile criminals a free ride into adulthood.

[Selfdfenz]

"FWIW, my DNA is already on file along with my prints, part of the job."

But your genotype is not part of CODIS and their's will be. You shouldn't feel comfortable that your DNA profile, fingerprints or any other kinds of personal info is in any database, part of the job or not.

What started out as a DNA database for violent/convicted offenders may now also become home to teenage arrestees. BS.

JMHO
S-

[DeltaElite]

Wow, I see it now. We wouldn't want to solve crimes by having criminals DNA on file. :rolleyes:

I have no worries about my physical characteristics being on file, since I have no plans to do anything where it would be an issue and neither do you, it is the paranoia that is the problem.
Paranoia is self destructive and more dangerous to us as individuals and as a whole, than having our DNA on file.

How is DNA anymore objectionable than fingerprints and pictures?

[Mike Irwin]

If they want a DNA sample they can scrape it off the window behind the bushes outside Emily Fanulino's bedroom...

[GregoryTech]

.

[Ol' Badger]

Ding Dong. "We want your DNA." "We are your Govt. We wont abuse the data." Here have some then. Hhhhwwwaacckk Ppittoie. Wipe it off your face. :fire:

[Selfdfenz]

Delta,

"Wow, I see it now. We wouldn't want to solve crimes by having criminals DNA on file. "

I happen to know something about this subject as it's what I do for a living.
A convicted felon is one thing......a teenager breaking curfew or only ARRESTED is different in my book. You seem to feel differently.
If you feel someone who has not had due process should be in the CODIS database there are others that do. You are not alone.
How about everyone, including 90 year-old Grandmas in nursing homes? Newborn infants? Some % of newborns will grow up to commit crime so why not put in all newborns?
Until convicted, I think we should have a presumption of innocence. LEO officers sometimes do unethical things. Cops make mistakes. And some pretty big ones…and with DNA….

FBI crime lab's analysis again under microscope
By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press

Just found that today BTW. I used to be a strong advocate for the death penalty. I’m beginning to feel differently. The above is just one reason why. More people inside the field are beginning to feel the same wayall the time. But not the policy makers and pols.

If your DNA is in an armed forces database you are at little to no risk of having it searched against DNA profiles from the evidence collected at the crime scenes of unsolved crimes.
If your thirteen year old shoplifts a CD and goes into CODIS, his or her profile will be there till HFsO. Twenty years later a cop finds an “item of abandoned interest” at a crime scene. Thanks to the database, it turns out to be your now adult child’s who was not there but had no alibi. Now their freedom, and financial health, marriage…. you name it, are all now at hazard over a CD they should have never touched 20 years before. And because they can’t afford a Dream Team like OJ, oops! That’s stupid.
That’s also the power of a DNA database and why ARRESTEES don’t belong in it. Convict’em fair and square, then put ‘em in but not before.

Until I see some checks and balances in the system I have a great deal of respect for the damage that can be done if this kind of train jumps the track. I would hate to see an innocent someone executed because a very powerful technology was used incorrectly or outright abused .....or worse. Putting arrestees in a database is a big step in that direction.


S-
and for a change not JMHO but the reality of the real World

[Standing Wolf]

Until convicted, I think we should have a presumption of innocence.

Now there's an idea that'll never catch on in leftist circles!

[DeltaElite]

Selfdfenz,
If the juvenile is printed, photographed and booked, then DNA is logical also.
Of course I don't see this going very far since DNA requires a bit more money expenditure than pictures and prints.

I don't see a difference in taking pictures and prints versus taking DNA. Physical characteristics do not require a conviction to be taken and filed, SCOTUS has ruled this on several occassions.
DNA is just a new physical characteristic to catalog.
People have their pictures and prints taken without the same due process that you are claiming they should get in order to have DNA taken.

Oddly all the same arguments about DNA sound applicable to fingerprints, since the fingerprint from a crime scene can put you there more accurately than DNA can and convict you just the same.

Oh and if someones DNA is at a crime scene and they don't have an alibi, then it is probably because they are the one who committed the crime. ;)

[DeltaElite]

Oh and my DNA will be in CODIS, just as my prints and mug are in the FBI database already.

There is no more potential for abuse of a DNA database than the already existing fingerprint database, so I really don't understand the resistance to the use of technology.
I know a Certified Latent Print Examiner very well ;) and they rule out as many people with fingerprints as they rule in.
Why would it be any different with DNA?
Paranoia is not a valid reason to be against the use of CODIS for all arrestees.
The potential for abuse is no more than that of AFIS systems for fingerprints.
The checks and balances for DNA are the same ones there for fingerprint systems, so they are already in place.

I already have this FBI chip in my head also, it's ok, but sometimes it sets off those darn store security/anti-shoplifting systems. :neener:

[Mike Irwin]

"Oh and if someones DNA is at a crime scene and they don't have an alibi, then it is probably because they are the one who committed the crime."

Well, not necessarily...

DNA can be planted a LOT more easily than fingerprints.

And, like fingerprints, it's often impossible to tell just how old the "sample" is from which the DNA was extracted.

DNA can be pulled out of bodily fluids months or even years after it was deposited.

[DeltaElite]

So because there is a chance that it can be planted, we should abandon it as a crime solving tool?

Seems the FBI managed to plant Lee Harvey Oswalds print on that Carcano almost 30 years ago. ;)

I know that it can be planted more easily, my comment was meant to be only about 90% serious.
Of course we all know that OJ was framed and all the evidence was planted. :rolleyes:

[tyme]

There is no more potential for abuse of a DNA database than the already existing fingerprint database, so I really don't understand the resistance to the use of technology.

That's an extremely bold assertion given the virtually total lack of understanding of how biological systems' operation results from DNA. We understand the mechanisms, but we know very little of the big picture. Once DNA can be easily analyzed to give a complete picture of the subject, which might include tendencies to rebel against authority, any question where that would lead? You think all past criminals who have such genetic dispositions (if they are genetic) wouldn't be surveilled and harassed, if not put back in prison, until the day they die?

[DeltaElite]

You think all past criminals who have such genetic dispositions (if they are genetic) wouldn't be surveilled and harassed, if not put back in prison, until the day they die?

No, there isn't even the manpower to watch and locate wanted criminals, let alone those with a genetic predispostion.

Honestly, I hadn't thought of the use of the DNA for genetic profiling by Le I was only thinking of crime solving.
I find genetic profiling rather frightening.
A whole new Eugenics movement could sprout from such data.

The potential for abuse from genetic profiling is huge.
Medical insurance providers want to abuse such information to eliminate clients that might cost them money, due to genetic predisposition to certain diseases.
I am sure that Le would not so much target individuals, as they would put them into a special database for people with certain genetic make ups. Again, this would be due to a lack of manpower, not a lack of wanting to target them. ;)

Now on a personal level, I don't have any criminal tendencies that I am aware of, unless being smart mouthed and overly opinionated, would be considered a criminal tendency.
The medical community would want to dump me in a heartbeat.

The problem with technology is having the wisdom to use it appropriately, that is the problem.

[CZ-75]

Oh and if someones DNA is at a crime scene and they don't have an alibi, then it is probably because they are the one who committed the crime.

So, if someone had killed Monica while wearing the blue dress, it would be safe to assume the "Slickster" did it?

I'm glad you see the potential for abuse. I, for one, wouldn't want some insurance company getting the same access to my DNA profile as they do my driving record. Unlike fingerprints, DNA has the potential to provide information about an individual that they themselves don't even know.

It would be one thing to take samples from convicted felons, but just taking samples and maintaining databases on those who've merely been arrested is a far different matter to my way of thinking. I believe that DNA databases represent an ultimate invasion of privacy. To claim that it may be expedient is true, but then so would having video cameras on every streetcorner and in every dwelling.

[DeltaElite]

So, if someone had killed Monica while wearing the blue dress, it would be safe to assume the "Slickster" did it?
Well considering all the people that have died that were associated with Slick Willy and the fact that he would have loved to have covered up the whole Monica incident.
If she had been murdered, he would have been at the top of my short list of suspects. :D
So it would be safe to assume that the "Slickster" was involved, of course he would have had a crony kill her, he aint man enough to kill someone himself.

Of course maybe DNA studies can tell me why I have all these voices in my head, now that would be good to know. :neener:

[CZ-75]

My thoughts too. Does anyone expect that he wouldn't have the same guys responsible for Vince Foster's "suicide" give an encore performance?

[DeltaElite]

No doubt in my mind that he would have if he could have, but she got to the press before he could have her killed.

[Jeff White]

If your DNA is in an armed forces database you are at little to no risk of having it searched against DNA profiles from the evidence collected at the crime scenes of unsolved crimes.

Sadly this is not true. There is legislation pending in Congress right now to open up the DOD DNA database. Stems from a rape case at Ft Hood IIRC.

Jeff

[Mike Irwin]

"So because there is a chance that it can be planted, we should abandon it as a crime solving tool?"

Delta,

Did I SAY that?

No, I didn't.

I was taking umbrage with your assessment that if someone doesn't have an alibi and the DNA is at the scene, they must have done the deed.

I smoke.

Someone could grab one of my cigarette butts from an ashtray or from the can outside my house and plant it at a scene.

The filter end on a cigarette is rife with DNA from cells shed from the mouth.

Given that I generally keep to myself and don't go out after getting home from work and I live alone, I generally don't have an alibi for my time, either, unless I'm posting here.

On the weekends there are HUGE portions of my days for which I don't have alibis, and given my propensity to stay up at odd hours when the rest of the world is asleep...

Now, if someone a few blocks away from me is murdered, I don't have an alibi, and one of my cigarette butts shows up at the scene, am I automatically guilty?

A few months ago there was a very interesting Criminal Intent episode involving the planting of DNA evidence to throw off police. It was based on a real incident.

[DeltaElite]

Mike,
My comment was made with a ;) at the end, meaning it was not entirely serious.
I then further elaborated that I was only about 90% serious about the comment, because I know that the DNA evidence being present, does not mean you are the perpatrator.
We find prints at crime scenes all the time that have nothing to do with the crime, DNA is a tool just like fingerprints.
There is more to a case than the mere presence of DNA of fingerprints.

All your posts on THR would be your alibi anyway. :D

[Selfdfenz]

Delta,
Many here have already addressed many of your comments so I'll just keep it to these. If you elect not to follow up the story title I posted that's fine. It would have taken you to some interesting and illuminating information. Information that anyone with a care about civil liberty and the rights of citizens would find highly illuminating and troubling.

DNA comes from a biological contribution of one sort of another which are collectable and transportable and storable almost indefinitely. The Devil is in that collectable and transportable detail. That little issue is what someone wanting to do another some real personal harm and with time on their hands could use to frame another every effectively. All the BG needs is knowledge that their target's profile is in CODIS and a little basic knlowledge of how to get, handle and plant the evidence. Hxll, read a Pat Cornwell novel and they are about there.

Just becasue someone associated with a crime scene has no alibi is never a reason to presume they are guilty. I can't account for every minute of every day. Most people can't. Not even LEOs and sometimes, especially, LEOs. You personally may never be in the wrong place at the wrong time but you can't say beyond doubt that your DNA will never be. If you are lucky enough to have hair :p can you account for everyone you have shed today?

Prints are much, much less collectable and transportable. Physical characteristics? Can't even begin to deal with collecting and transporting, planting those.

If you LPE friend doesn't hold the credentials of a qualified DNA analyst I would advise you to take their POV on DNA with a grain of salt. Like I said, many DNA analysts are having problems with some recommendations our political leaders and pols are making. If you are a honest citizen OR in LE you should give that some serious thought. DNA genotypes and finger prints are not even close to the same thing in terms of how they are handled in the CJS. I'm no LPE but I have gotten DNA from a few bloody partials.
Can't say squat about the prints but the blood came for the victim every time. Put on your evil thinking cap Delta and consider the possibilities of how that finding had an equal potential to solve a homicide (a good thing) or sponsor one by the state (a very bad thing, least in my book it is).

You never heard me say DNA shouldn't be used to fight/solve crime. I'll stand on the actual DNA testing I've done or been involved with over the last decade+ as my clear statement that DNA IS a good way to bring the guilty to justice. However, if used wrongly against an innocent person it can be pure Hxll. That's what the articules were about.
Ask a defense atty or prosecutor which is more powerful, DNA, an eye witness account or prints if you don't believe me. Heck just watch 60 Minutes.

Arrestees don't belong in the CODIS database untill they become convictees. Neither do the genotypes of soldiers, honest citizens or infants.

The Brits supposedly had a policy in place to expunge geneotypes of people that were in their db but turned out not to be involved in a given crime. Through incrementalism and over time I seem to remember they no longer expunge any data. If someone knows otherwise I stand corrected in advance.

I could be wrong but over there I don't believe they even need a search warrant to get the sample. So, co-resident in their db are the convicted and those that have never been guilty of anything. And probably 90% men. Go figure.

And..... the Brits are leading the charge toward low copy number DNA testing which scares the heck out of me and many others in the club here at home.

Looks like the US can't get there fast enough for some.
Oh well, this is America, where we can just kick back and stay fat and happy. If someone is on trial they have to be guilty, don't they?

Take care,
S-

[Tamara]

There is no more potential for abuse of a DNA database than the already existing fingerprint database, so I really don't understand the resistance to the use of technology.

Which of course makes the assumption that I think prophylactic fingerprinting of everyone arrested is a good idea... ;)

Got fingerprints at the crime scene? Fine, get a warrant to obtain fingerprints of your suspects. Otherwise the concept of "presumption of innocence" takes another beating.

As for your DNA being on file? Well, when you take the king's shilling... ;)

[DeltaElite]

Selfdfenz,
I guess I am guilty of fascism, since I am for the placing of DNA of arrestees, along with their fingerprints and photos on file. ;)
Oh and assuming that I didn't follow up on the links is incorrect.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I didn't read up on the subject.
Your assertion that I don't care about civil liberties and the rights of citizens is also incorrect and seems to be a statement to make you seem more caring and concerned than I am.
We are on the same side, just with a little different point of view. :D

Since you claim to have experience with DNA, just what is your vocation and experience in this realm?
Do you have any experience in the legal system?
Have you ever testified in court?

The technology may have some drawbacks, but it is improving daily. There are always those in the field that are opposed to the use of technology, even in Latent Prints there are some "experts" who question it's validity.
Maybe the database should be held back until the questions are answered, maybe not.

The chance for the planting of evidence is present, but you have a better chance of winning the powerball than being a victim of a DNA planting consipiracy.

One assumption that many seem to be making is that DNA will immediately make you guilty, it will do this no more than a fingerprint would. It will make you a suspect and be used as an investigative tool, but without other elements, it should not prove anyones guilt.
There would still be the need for motive, oppurtunity, etc.

As I have said previously, I am much more concerned with the use of genetic profiling by Le and the medical community than I am its use in the criminal investigation realm.

[CZ-75]

DE,

If they need my DNA, they'd better have probable cause and a court order.

If the government has no business regestering firearms, inquiring about your sexual preferences, or mandating that you specify your religious beliefs, they certainly have no right to the genetic blueprint of who I am.

[Selfdfenz]

Delta,

"Since you claim to have experience with DNA, just what is your vocation and experience in this realm?
Do you have any experience in the legal system?
Have you ever testified in court?"

It's not just claim.
Molecular biologist involved in DNA testing since 1990. (I believ the FBI cranked up in about '88 or so) Somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 criminal DNA cases for the prosecution. About 2% that many of the defense. Uncounted other types of identity applications all as an analyst. Now more involved in opeartions and adminsitration of those that turn the cranks. Have been involved directly in CODIS profiling projects for several states and metro crime labs in the past, as I am now.

Legal sys experience...testified...double yep.

I never said there was anything wrong with the current technology. Only with the uses some would put it to. Those are very different things. Guns don't kill people, peoplel kill people kind of a thing.

I would perfer not to call anyone a fascist. If you believe you have fully informed yourself about the topics I have addressed to the extent you can make a sound critical decision to support putting juv. arrestees into CODIS it has nothing to do fascism. You are deciding, based on what you preceive to be the facts.
I do that all the time as do we all. I'm wrong occassionally because I don't have all the facts as you are now. Has nothing to do with fascism.

"The chance for the planting of evidence is present, but you have a better chance of winning the powerball than being a victim of a DNA planting consipiracy."

Nothing about the technology allows you to know what is legit and what is not. Only the ID of the donor. If you think the chances of a misadventure are so small, try running searches on terms like:
Joyce Gilcrest
Fred Zane
Problems at the FBI Lab ( that will get you 2 different sets of probelms, years apart)

That will get you started. Come back and I PM you some more if you like.

"One assumption that many seem to be making is that DNA will immediately make you guilty, it will do this no more than a fingerprint would. It will make you a suspect and be used as an investigative tool, but without other elements, it should not prove anyones guilt.
There would still be the need for motive, oppurtunity, etc."

Lots or people believe that .....but just in case do a search on the name:
Josiah Sutton, a pretty recent example out of Houston, Texas
it goes a lot farther than an investigative tool too often. Wonder how he will get those years back! The link suggestions above should have been an eye opener also. In many of these cases DNA alone clobbered the innocent or overpowered all kinds of other evidence that would have helped free the innocent but accused party.

"As I have said previously, I am much more concerned with the use of genetic profiling by Le and the medical community than I am its use in the criminal investigation realm'

You should be worried about all of it, db included. Given the POV of a man like Chief Moose in DC why would you be comfortable a LEO like him has access to ANY DNA technology given his use of profiling in what looks so much like a racially biased way?

When used right, there is no bigger supporter of DNA technology than me. Untill someone does a crime and is convicted for it, no government agency should have someones DNA profile regardless of his or her age.

Here is the real killer. I am absolutley in favor of DNA db and biometric cards for every person visiting the US or caught here illegally. It makes me white hot some in our governemnt want all of us (honest citizens, our kids, and Granny) in a db but not the illegals, drug smugglers and potential terrorists that come and go with complete freedom.

Over and out>>>>>
S-

[DeltaElite]

I had a lenghty response, but the darn errornet ate it. grrrrrrrr

Anyway, I have much reading and thinking to do, needless to say.
I don't like the idea of anyone having a genetic blueprint of me or anyone else, the potential for abuse is even greater than the potential of abuse of DNA evidence.

We have the technology, now it has to be used without malice, which is the hard part when power, money and govt are involved.

Selfdfenz,
Sorry for questioning you credentials, I must have read someone elses profile, since I thought you were in a completely different career field. My bad. :o

Regrads,
Mike

[CZ-75]

I don't like the idea of anyone having a genetic blueprint of me or anyone else, the potential for abuse is even greater than the potential of abuse of DNA evidence.


Huh?


DNA = Genetic Blueprint


Of course, using marker regions from whole genomic DNA or short fragments containing these doesn't provide a complete picture. Still, it is like pulling a few of the same pages out of that blueprint to compare to everyone else's copies of the same page; the unscrupulous could go back to the original and look for additional info.

[DeltaElite]

Hey, I'm admittedly outa my league here.
I am going back to posting why the 10mm is the best autoloader cartridge going, at least I know something about that. ;)

[MeekandMild]

"One assumption that many seem to be making is that DNA will immediately make you guilty, it will do this no more than a fingerprint would. It will make you a suspect and be used as an investigative tool, but without other elements, it should not prove anyones guilt. OK how about this scenereo:

You are arrested, DNA typed and then released, maybe for the crime of "driving while black". Then ten years later you shed a few hairs in a 7-11 store. The store gets robbed. The floor sweep finds the hairs, they get a match from your archived DNA.

Probable cause for questioning, but they get a secret search warrent because you "fit the profile".

You get the proverbial midnight knock on the door. They search your house, find your gun collection then 'way back in the guest bedroom they find the butt of a marijuana joint your grandson's college friend dropped during a visit last spring break. They keep looking and in the paper recycling pile they find a book by Ragner Bensen that your wife, knowing you liked guns, got you at a garage sale. Then the find your grandmother's hat in the attic with it's cute little design made of owl feathers.

So now they have you for a big cluster of felonies that you didn't commit. what now? Plea bargain?

[DeltaElite]

Replace DNA with fingerprint and your scenario is the same.
So how is it really any different with the term DNA?

[Tamara]

Replace DNA with fingerprint and your scenario is the same.
So how is it really any different with the term DNA?

It's not.

What makes you assume that everyone here is cool with a fingerprint database?

Both make a mockery of the presumption of innocence...

[DeltaElite]

I guess we shall just have to disagree Tamara, I don't see how fingerprints effect the presumption of innocence.
There has to be a way to tell if the person you charged with a crime is the same person you have at trial and pictures just don't cut it with 250 million people in our country, that is what fingerprints accomplish, in addition to being a crime solving tool.
Now I am seeing how DNA, since it is not needed to tell individuals apart for the legal purposes I mentioned above, does infringe upon the presumption of innocence.
So I can be swayed by logical reasoning. ;)

So I do see how DNA should only be used as an after conviction tool.
Wow and it only took all day to get me to this point.

In fact prints are used to protect the innocent.
I had a guy on Monday that was using two of his brothers names, first one then the other, we didn't believe him when he gave either name.
The fingerprints proved who he was and prevented his brothers from being charged with the burglary that he had committed.
I am sure his brothers are happy about that.

My DNA was taken to clear me from an allegation that an emotionally disturbed woman made.
So unlike President Clinton, I can say truthfully, that I did not have sex with that woman. :D

[El Tejon]

Delta, anything that can be abused, will be abused. Just think of a DNA database as city administrative regulations regarding police departments.:D

[DeltaElite]

Ewwwwwwwww, that was mean El Tejon. :D
However, somewhat enlightening. :D

[CZ-75]

the 10mm is the best autoloader cartridge going

I second that.

[dustind]

I don't think there should be any databses like this. No fingerprint, DNA, ballistic, etc. They can all ruin an innocent person's life. These databses do not protect the innocent. They simply put people through the system, mostly bad, some good. Things like this can also lead to a lot of abuse.

I agree on the 10mm, just wish they were cheaper.