F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases

[Rockntractor]

Lawyers and judges needed something to do.

I was just goofing around until now. Can you kindly cite where in the Constitution the "presumption of innocence" explicity exists?

"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments" wilkipedia
I stand corrected.

[Bubba Dawg]

What is WGAS? Who gives a shit????

The world is a dangerous place. Better one innocent man gets locked up than a hundred guilty men get set free.

I feel exactly the opposite. I would prefer 99 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail. Anything else is a travesty.

If actual innocence is inconsequential, then there is no justice.

[Water Closet]

What is WGAS? Who gives a shit????

You got it. The conservatives' motto on this subject.

The world is a dangerous place. Better one innocent man gets locked up than a hundred guilty men get set free.

I've heard that somewhere, but I'm not sure it went quite like that. ;) :D

Seriously, however, I do object because of the principle, not because of the specifics. Take Padilla, for example. He, an American citizen, was held for three years without charge and without access to counsel, effectively scraping the notion of habeas corpus for Georgie-Porgie's short-term political gains. Johnny Ascroft, he of the "no-boobs" fame, caught him, almost single-handedly btw, with all the materials for a "dirty bomb." Funny how he was never charged with anything related to a dirty bomb.

When Napolitano and Obama declare some right-wing schmuck an enemy combatant, all those who cheered Johnny and Georgie need to remember that they gave them this power without objection.

[Elspeth]

I feel exactly the opposite. I would prefer 99 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail. Anything else is a travesty.

If actual innocence is inconsequential, then there is no justice.

I agree with you here. If we are going the way of Britain (and it seems we do that in just about everything, including bad reality shows), then we will have a hugely increased DNA database in a few years. Police state anyone? And, yeah, it's the Dems doing it this time. Obama will get away with it because the mainstream Dems will have their guard down and only the right will be fighting this.

[Water Closet]

I agree with you here. If we are going the way of Britain (and it seems we do that in just about everything, including bad reality shows), then we will have a hugely increased DNA database in a few years. Police state anyone? And, yeah, it's the Dems doing it this time. Obama will get away with it because the mainstream Dems will have their guard down and only the right will be fighting this.

Thank God we're not like those Euro-Weenies...

England's blanket retention of DNA profiles on criminal suspects was declared unlawful today. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the human rights of two British men to enjoy respect for their private and family lives had been violated.

The landmark ruling is expected to force a policy change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where police retain indefinitely the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of people suspected but not convicted of crimes.

Approximately 4.5 million samples are currently stored on the UK's DNA database. More than 850,000 of these samples are from people with no criminal record, according to reports.

A more restricted policy applies in Scotland, an approach that may become a blueprint for UK policing after today's ruling.

http://www.out-law.com/page-9639

[noonwitch]

I'd make the argument that the information collected is far more potentially damaging than the fact that nothing from the body is being seized. Regardless, suppose there was a technique available whereby your DNA information could be collected without any part of your body being seized, would you drop your opposition to the practice then?

There kind of is a way, if they get hold of a good hair sample off a suspect's clothing. But there would be logistics of proving that the sample is truly that person's hair, and that would likely lead to problems in court.


For paternity tests, they now take swabs of cheek cells. It works well, because then they don't have to get a blood sample from a crying baby or small child.