BS: DNA Why shield criminals?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:27 AM

Peace, some people have guns, but ALL of us have DNA. In the US it must be frustrating to find, in the course of a criminal investigation, a spent bullet from an unregistered gun. Registering the gun allows its owner to be traced quickly should that be neccessary. You get the point.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 05:51 AM

NO NO NO NO!

G.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 02:23 AM

I am comfortable with the idea, despite being a "lefty" or "not-righty" (I find these labels out of touch with today's realities anyway). But that could be because I grew up with it. In Greece we have had a national fingerprint database since before I was born, and I still remember going proudly to the police station to be fingerprinted and have my first national ID card made as soon as I turned 14.

And we did have a totalitarian government for 7 years (67-74, the junta years), which hunted "lefties" and persecuted anyone that disagreed with them. But the fingerprints database and the National ID cards played no role in that; they were not required for the purpose.

Neither is fingerprint or DNA evidence sufficient by itself to convict anyone; it places them at a crime scene, sure, but does not pinpoint the time of that presence. In a notorious serial killer hunt in that same period of the junta, which led to the wrongful conviction and eventual execution of a local (but innocent) pervert, there was no fingerprint evidence used - indeed, if there were any, it would have served to avoid that travesty of justice.

Sure, I am up for it. I have nothing to hide, and those that would abuse me have bigger weapons at their disposal anyway, like bribery, corruption, amorality, withholding of evidence and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Bert
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 01:20 AM

corruption rules, always has done, always will do... So don't give them any more ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 12:54 AM

This is a 'register guns' argument. I own a gun. I do not intend to do anything illegal with it. Therefore, the State has no need for me to register it because it will not be used for anything bad by me. And, people who intend to do bad things with guns won't register them either (for obvious reasons). SO, why register guns? Or more specifically, why should I register MY gun?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 12:24 AM

Bert, corruption rules, always has done, always will do. There is NO magic wand to make it all go away, but this isn't the issue here.
What we're talking about is a method of curtailling the activities of serial killers before they become serial killers, to shorten the time any criminal is on the loose. We have the technology to protect innocent people from being raped and/or murdered. If you can tell me why it should not be commissioned, I'm all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 12:06 AM

M.Ted, any evidence can be planted, and DNA is neither easier nor more difficult to plant than most other types.
Your point seems more to do with corrupt policing than DNA & fp databases.
Neither of these issues affect what is under discussion here.
My point is that more crimes would be solved quicker and less opportunities would exist for serial offenders to remain free, as a direct result of DNA & fp databases.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 11:55 PM

Rapaire, all forensic findings are compared with that of people known to have been at the scene. This is normal, and the system would remain unchanged should a DNA & fp database be established.

Criminals have been 'wising up' since Dickens introduced the word 'detective', so what's new?

Planted evidence has been with us a long time, too, so again, what's new?

Corrupt prosecutors ditto, ditto.

Innocent men jailed? So what's new.

Texan professionals not professional enough? Bring them up to scratch or revamp the outfit.

Rapaire, if this were a game of chess I'd expect you to concede defeat at this point.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Bert
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 11:36 PM

Don't blame it all on the police. The courts are also quite capable of wrongly incarcerating people.

There was a case a couple of years ago in Pennsylvania where over 140 inmates had to be released because they were unlawfully sent to jail.

The more information these people have the more possibilities there are for abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 11:29 PM

I lived in Philadephia, known far and wide for it's police brutality and evidence planting. I remember when 50 people were released from prison when it was discovered that the police had planted drug evidence--and all were from just one police precinct. DNA evidence is easier to plant than drugs--

Here is an article that illuminates the concerns about DNA evidence-Differential Trust in DNA Forensics

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 11:07 PM

If a cop finds a cigarette butt or other source of DNA at a scene he'll have it checked. But...usually there are many sources of DNA at a crime scene: the criminal's and the victim's of course, but possibly members of the victim's family, neighbors, friends, even repair people or salesfolk.

Rapists have started to wear condoms so they take their ejaculate with them. Others have also shaved their pubic hair so that isn't left. Yes, the criminal does always leave traces of himself at the scene, but they can be DAMNED hard for the cops to find, and a plant can and has send innocent people to prison, even to death row.

The so-called "Duke Rape Case" prosecutor faces disbarment and prison for his actions, one of which was to fail to provide DNA evidence to the defense. Evidence which could have cleared the accused or at least established reasonable doubt. In the meantime the lives of three young men are tainted and because of overweaning ambition a prosecutor faces the loss of his profession and jail, possibly with men he'd help send up.

The Houston PD lab is still not permitted to do DNA analysis because the courts and the State of Texas aren't sure of the work done there after the scandal. The FBI lab, fer crissakes!, has been implicated and convicted of shoddy DNA work.

My answer is still no.

(By the way, since I was in the Army my fingerprints ARE on file with the FBI.)

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 09:52 PM

Ythanside: I too see what YOU are asying. And I agree it would be a great idea. But . . . .

I like your posts, btw, and if I say anything to offend you, it isn't intentional. There are a few folks I go out of my way to offend. You aren't one of them. Best to you.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 09:34 PM

Hi there, Peace. I respect your opinions and understand exactly what you've been saying. (Don't tell anyone, but I have been known to play devil's advocate at times, just to kick up a little dust.)
Cheers,
Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 09:11 PM

Police (federal, state/provincial and municipal) have manipulated data before, and not always for the good. There is a growing school of thought that "if you have nothing to hide then why not". I don't buy into that thinking. The onus of proof has to remain with the prosecutors, not the defense. Someone says to me, "You shouldn't be offended that governmnet wants to know what you're doing 24/7 because if you have noting to hide then you have nothing to worry about." I reply, "Same back atcha. You won't mind your next crap (bowel movement) being filmed in case there is any future doubt as to where you were at 7:36 AM, June 15, 2007." Sorry. Yesterday, today, tomorrow: I don't trust government all that much. And in fact they have given us very little reason to trust them. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 08:57 PM

Rapaire, Locard's Law states(with apologies for my own translation) that in the perpetration of a crime the perpetrator takes something of the crime away with him, and leaves something of himself at the scene.
The application of this Law has been routine in good police work for generations. It is a tool, and DNA & fp science are integral components of that very tool. To deny their comprehensive application, thereby hampering efficient investigation of serious crime simply because you distrust insurance companies and official bodies, seems unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 08:24 PM

McGrath, the possibilities are frightening, but the reality of what is happening right now is the real horror. People WILL be raped or murdered by sociopaths at liberty at this very moment simply because the evidence left at previous attacks has not been linked to them. By all means think of imagined future misuse of your personal information by government departments, but mull it over again the next time you read that some psycho nut has been arrested following his third or fourth murder or rape. You know, I know, and everyone else knows it will happen, and will continue to happen until common sense prevails over mistrust.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 08:11 PM

Don(Wyziwyg);
'surely this would give the same, or better, results)

No, because you assume that the police have their suspect in front of them, and take a DNA sample to confirm guilt or innocence. This would be productive only IF they ever happen upon the perp. By that method any perp could leave town and be free and clear which, given the numbers of unsolved crimes, must be a fairly common MO.
If the police have a DNA sample from the soc, doesn't it seem glaringly obvious that if all DNA is on record then the 'needle in a haystack' scenario is consigned to the dustbin? It does to me.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 08:02 PM

Absolutely, bodad. I have no desire to give insurance companies data they can't derive for themselves.

What would be next? A woman with a predisposition for breast cancer being REQUIRED to have breast removal? Hitlerian eugenics programs? US-type eugenics programs?

Moreover, there have been enough incidents here in the US of bad lab work (even by the FBI) relating to DNA that I simply don't trust any mass program. Worse, DNA evidence, like all evidence, can be planted (a cigarette butt, for instance, could yield DNA from your saliva).

If asked, yes, I would cooperate IF the sample and the records relating to it were destroyed later in my presence. But technology and science are tools which assist good police work (and other work, for that matter), not a substitute for it.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:59 PM

Rapaire, in the case you relate you say the video evidence provided by the criminals themselves secured their own convictions, although some of their DNA was found on a knife used in the crime. Any DNA found at the soc could have sufficed, and I'm sure you don't envisage the level of stupidity displayed by those idiots becoming a common means of capturing the bad guys.

The insurance company stuff was answered by bobad.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:47 PM

No, the tyrants of the past didn't need evidence once they'd decided who to go for. But if they'd had this kind of information it would have been so much easier for them to identify anyone who might be any kind of problem to them.

Not just the DNA stuff on its own - put it together with the surveillance cameras and the data from identity cars and credit cards and computer search engines...

Every bit of the information network makes sense on its own, including the DNA bank - but put them together and the possibilities are frightening. There have to be ways of protecting us from that kind of power, and holding the people in authority strictly to account. And we certainly don't have those effectively in place yet.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:45 PM

Thanks for clarifying that, Sorcha, and for the positive response. My only contact with police is purely social, apart from the occasional brittle chat with a traffic cop while he writes out a parking ticket. In general cops seem, as you say, just like anybody else but doing a job that wouldn't suit most people. What is certain is that society couldn't funtion without them, at least not until we evolve/develop to a much higher level of civilisation. That will happen, I'm sure, although not this week or next.
Cheers,
Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:35 PM

"by insurance companies to refuse to insure those who showed a genetic propensity to breast cancer or other genetically-linked disorders."

The insurance industry is quite adept at testing for genetic predispositions without access to a data base. Part of the work up for personal insurance involves a medical history where applicants are asked about familial medical conditions. If anything suspicious comes up eg. certain cancers, diabetes or a myriad other conditions for which genetic markers have been identified they will test for them when procuring blood and other samples from the applicant.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:30 PM

In the UK fingerprints are destroyed if a suspect is not convicted, so there would have to be a significant change in legal standards if a DNA database were to be established.

However, I for one see no reason why it should not be legally compulsory to supply a DNA sample to officers engaged in a search for a criminal, providing that those samples clearing their providers of any wrongdoing, were destroyed.

Surely this would give the same, or better, results, albeit with somewhat greater effort than consulting a database.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:15 PM

No.

Such a database has been proposed (and in the case of the military implemented) in the US. It was felt that there was too great a chance that it would be used, for instance, by insurance companies to refuse to insure those who showed a genetic propensity to breast cancer or other genetically-linked disorders.

Moreover most crimes are NOT solved like on CSI, but by dint of good police work and stupid criminals. Two young men were recently convicted here of first-degree murder and intent to commit the same -- not by DNA (although some of their DNA was found on knife used in the crime) but (for one reason) because they videotaped themselves before and after discussing the crime!

The military database exists (and I believe you can opt out of it) to help identify casualties. Tripping a 155 mm artillery shell rigged as a booby-trap (oops, IED) really leaves very, very little of the tripper....

No. Not only no, but HELL no!

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 07:06 PM

Oh, sorry, the choices that were offered in a post. I am married (for 34 years) to a cop (for 23 years)

I tend to trust cops in person, but not in general. I know too much about just how human they are. Can be vindictive bastards. Just like anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:43 PM

Sorcha, forgive my ignorance of MC shorthand (I'm so recently here I'm almost a virgin again), but could you tell me whether #1 means the thread posting or the first response?
Be gentle with me.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:35 PM

Bert, stop monkeying about! :-)

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:34 PM

Skipy, you're a breath of fresh air!

Thank you,

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:32 PM

GUEST,petr;
'In a way the DNA banks already exist'

Do you mean from those already convicted and sampled?
Would only catch a recidivist, not the likes of Peter Sutcliffe, who could have been snared before his second killing.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:28 PM

the first test case

actually it looks like there already is a national database, although not mandatory, samples are taken when someone is arrested

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Bert
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:27 PM

We share 90 something percent of our DNA with Chimps.

So watch out Chongo!!!

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:26 PM

McGoH;

Totalitarian governments (as well as those damned totaltarian ones.) :-)

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM

McGrath of Harlow; Totaltarian governments like those of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al required no evidence to arrest, convict, sentence and execute anyone. So the anti-DNA & fp register view does not apply.

Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: skipy
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:22 PM

Finger print, blood group, DNA, retina scan & chip all children at birth, that would make it out of the question to kidnap a child.
Do the same to all entering the country, if they are up to no good then we can find them in no time, if they are not causing a problem then the info would never be used!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:19 PM

KB, the risk referred to is the risk of unscrupulous lawmen 'fitting up' innocent people. If a crooked cop wants to 'ride roughshod over the rights of the people' he doesn't require DNA as a tool, and never has. Bad cops will remain bad cops, regardless of the weapons at their disposal. Their existence, however, cannot justify opposition to innovations that would serve us better were they to be implemented sooner rather than later. Unknown numbers of unneccessary injuries and deaths will occur before this system becomes a legal requirement as, one day, it surely will.

Folkle, the whole point is that DNA & fp evidence frequently IS avilable, but there is no database, other than that of recidivists, to check it against. DNA may well be common to more than one person, but eliminating six or seven suspects to find the perp has to be a safer and quicker route than searching through several million possibles.   

Peace, government intervention isn't the issue here, only improved protection for innocent citizens. The national census, once opposed and regarded as intrusive government intervention, is now recognised as a helpful aid to local and national planning.


Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:08 PM

I believe the very first DNA test case was in Britain,
the police had the killers DNA and in order to find him they asked several hundred? or thousand men in the area - to submit their DNA
(this fellow actually tried to get someone to go in his place and thats what alerted the police to him)..

in a way the DNA banks already exist..

another case is where the police did not have the suspects DNA but ended using one of those DNA genealogy sites - and were able to get a fit with someone who was a distant relative (same last name) as the killer.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 06:03 PM

A fingerprint data base has existed in the US for a really long time, but I'll go with #1 also.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:57 PM

Yes it makes sense. But yy worry about this kind of thing is, how would I feel if it was a government run by Hitler/Stalin/Pinochet etc etc having this kind of extra information about everybody.

We are now living in a time when, for the first time in human history, a genuinely totalitarian government which is in a position to know everything about everybody is actually possible.

Tyrannies in the past have been called totalitarian, and they've done their damnest to keep control of everything, but they just didn't have the practical ability to really control more than a fraction of what went on. They had to depend on piecemeal stuff like informers.

That's no longer true. That means that a new totalitarianism will be able to dispense with a lot of the heavy stuff. No need to crack down on thousands or even millions to get at the dissidents, they'll be able to do it on a one-by-one targetted basis. And most people will never even know.

It's pretty frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:22 PM

What Peace said.

"My fellow lefties say(shout, usually) that this would lay us wide open to 'fit-ups' by unscrupulous lawmen, but this risk has existed for centuries without apparent widespread abuse by the police"

DNA and fingerprinting technologies have not been available 'for centuries.'

'Unscrupulous lawmen' have indeed ridden roughshod over the rights of the people many times and will do so again. I don't see any reason to make it easier.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: folk1e
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:15 PM

If the British Constabulary have (en mass) refused to have their DNA samples stored on the database do you realy need further answers?
OK just in case you do .....
If DNA evidence for identification is required it looses most of it's legitamacy if it is taken from a pool.
Can you spot the difference between:-
   1 We arrested the defendant because of the evidence and after testing we got a positive DNA result.
   2 We looked in our database and arrested the defendant who does not have a cast iron allibi.

Me, I'll go for number one every time. Don't forget DNA is not unique!

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:08 PM

I don't care for that much government intervention in my life. So, in a nice quiet word, "No."

Subject: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:02 PM

Am I the only person who thinks that there should be national DNA and fingerprint registers? Such databanks would ensure that many crimes could be solved quickly, and greatly limit the actions of serial rapists, killers, muggers etc. The technology exists, so why not put it to the greater good and protection of law-abiding citizens? The initial costs would be huge, I know, but surely the reduction in repeat offending would more than compensate for that.   
My fellow lefties say(shout, usually) that this would lay us wide open to 'fit-ups' by unscrupulous lawmen, but this risk has existed for centuries without apparent widespread abuse by the police, and the only winners at present are the criminals.   
Ythanside