Would you stand for police taking your DNA?

Sebastin · Post by **Sebastin** » 2003-08-25 09:26pm

I don´t have a fixed position on this yet, but I think it´s far from an easy issue.

Just for info: this exact question generated some controversy in germany recently. German law allows such voluntary screening tests in specific circumstances and there were about a dozen high profile cases over the last two years, the largest of which involving testing some 8000 men (IIRC). Ther also is a database in operation which stores the genetic fingerprints of all sex offenders as well as all samples from rape victims.

The problems I see are:

1. The screening test is NOT voluntary. Sure it is sold as such and you can refuse .... only to immediatly find yourself on a suspect shortlist, recieve massive peer pressure from the community (which WILL most likely find out) and face the significant danger to fall victim to misguided vigilantism. It wouldn´t be the first time a man gets wrongfully lynched because peoples emotions are boiling high.
The bottom line is that you face reprisals for refusing such a test.

2. "But I have nothing to hide!" So you don´t need to encrypt your e-mails either or restrict acces to your computer. And have no problem with having your phone calls taped and your letters read i assume?
There surely are good arguments in favor of DNA screening (just like there are good arguments for wiretapping phones an intercepting mail in certain circumstances), but this is not one of them.

3. "Genetic fingerprints can only be used for identification." Unfortunatly that is not true (and the source of afromentioned controversy in germany). Labs in germany did extract useful personal information from genetic fingerprints, like inhereted disseases, ethnicity and physical build, which, by scientific knowledge of just 2 years ago when the procedures where crafted to prevent exactly that, should not contain such information. And they weren´t even looking for it (which would be banned), the results simple turned up during procession. It is reasonable to expect that much more info can be extractet as research goes on.
(PS: This was purely the genetic fingerprint tables which contained this information, NOT the actual samples)

As i said there surely are good arguments in favor for DNA-screening and its certainly good to see a pedophile scumbag brought to justice, but the issue is not that easy.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-25 09:41pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I would only agree if they signed a contract stating that they would immediatly destroy all record of the DNA test, and the sample.

I wouldn't even do that. They'd have to literally cold cock me first before
they could get a DNA sample.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-25 09:44pm

Something to hide Shep has.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-25 09:46pm

Montcalm wrote:Something to hide Shep has.

They already have my fingerprints on file in the National Crime Database,
and that's all they're fucking getting

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-25 09:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Something to hide Shep has.
They already have my fingerprints on file in the National Crime Database,
and that's all they're fucking getting

So i guess it mean you won`t steal anything at the Smithsonian.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-25 10:20pm

Sebastin wrote:So you don´t need to encrypt your e-mails either or restrict acces to your computer. And have no problem with having your phone calls taped and your letters read i assume?

I post most of my emails on message boards, my computer has no password, I don't use the phone and my letters are dumb.

in germany). Labs in germany did extract useful personal information from genetic fingerprints, like inhereted disseases, ethnicity and physical build, which, by scientific knowledge of just 2 years ago when the procedures where crafted to prevent exactly that, should not contain such information.

Oh, no! Now they'll use it to construct a super-virus to wipe out people who are me!

I don't really want to sound sarcastic, but in this case I don't see much of an alternative.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-25 11:36pm

I'd have no problem with it. As stated, it is voluntary. I may or may not choose to do so (depending on how busy I was doing things at the time), but I would not object to asking for volunteers to supply DNA for purposes of confirming or denying the potential guilt of an individual. Assuming I have not committed a crime, I have nothing to hide in this case (BTW, nice black-and-white fallacy there, Sebastin, assuming that nothing to hide covers every aspect of life). While I don't care for the government imposing itself on me, I don't oppose them requesting volunteers to narrow the suspect list. That does leave the decision to the people, which is sufficient for me.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-26 01:10am

I object to the "Well if you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide" line of reasoning. If you've got nothing to hide, then you wouldn't mind the government putting a camera in your bathroom, would you? After all, you're not doing anything illegal in there, are you?

I don't like the idea of the police treating everyone in the neighborhood as a suspect, either, which is precisely what they did. They went around, asked people for their DNA and then ticked them off the list of suspects if they submitted their DNA. The problem is that people aren't suspects unless they can be linked to the crime in some way, either by motive, association or whatever. That's part of due process. So yes, I think that there are definitely civil liberty issues with this line of investigation. My refusal to submit my DNA to law enforcement when they have nothing to link me to a crime should not be used against me or make me a suspect.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-08-26 01:59am

I think in this case (I've said it before but it deserves emphasis), that if you as a citizen can help solve a brutal murder and bring the killer to justice before he strikes again, you have a moral duty to help the police by letting them sample your DNA. Not a legal obligation, but a moral one. But that's ALL you're obligated to do--you have every moral and legal right to demand that once you've been eliminated as a suspect, your DNA sample and all information gained from it is destroyed, with the right to legal recourse if this is not done in a thorough and timely manner.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-26 02:01am

Its not my preference, but damned right I'd do it if it helped the police catch a pedophile murderer.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-26 05:59am

Already have done

Of course, I was the victim in that case, and they needed to eliminate my DNA from the samples they had already collected from other places

, and it's now been destroyed (just as it is legally obliged to be if I haven't done anything wrong), but if I hadn't, that line of investigation would be closed and there'd still be a serial rapist stalking the streets of Camden (another one).

And there's nothng it can be used for apart from identifying me.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-08-26 07:04am

That happens on a regular basis here in Germany. When they find some DNA of the attacker/whatever, they ask for the people in the neighbouring regions for DNA samples. Happened countless times...
I don't have a problem with it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-26 11:34am

RedImperator wrote:I think in this case (I've said it before but it deserves emphasis), that if you as a citizen can help solve a brutal murder and bring the killer to justice before he strikes again, you have a moral duty to help the police by letting them sample your DNA. Not a legal obligation, but a moral one. But that's ALL you're obligated to do--you have every moral and legal right to demand that once you've been eliminated as a suspect, your DNA sample and all information gained from it is destroyed, with the right to legal recourse if this is not done in a thorough and timely manner.

The moral obligation isn't the actual issue here. The issue is that people with no connection whatsoever to the crime in question are being treated as suspects, and people who choose to exercise their right to privacy by not submitting their DNA are having that used against them.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-26 11:38am

Durandal wrote: The moral obligation isn't the actual issue here. The issue is that people with no connection whatsoever to the crime in question are being treated as suspects,

No. Only if you REFUSE the DNA test are you treated as a suspect.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-26 01:02pm

BoredShirtless wrote:No. Only if you REFUSE the DNA test are you treated as a suspect.

That means that everyone is a suspect by default, whether or not a connection between all those individuals and the crime has been established or not. That is a blatant violation of due process.

Furthermore, refusing to submit to a voluntary test cannot be used as grounds for suspicion any more than refusing to allow the government to watch you taking a shit in your bathroom can. The fact that police can randomly come to my home, ask for a sample of my DNA and then consider me a suspect in a crime if I refuse is a reprehensible violation of civil liberties.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-26 01:07pm

To me, this is no different from being under no obligation to testify or give evidence either to the police or in court- that you make no admissions is neither here nor there to your guilt, and cannot be used against you.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-26 01:11pm

Vympel wrote:To me, this is no different from being under no obligation to testify or give evidence either to the police or in court- that you make no admissions is neither here nor there to your guilt, and cannot be used against you.

In fact, the Miranda Rights read to someone after he's been arrested make that clear. He has the right to remain silent, and anything he says can be used against him in a court. What he doesn't say cannot be used against him because he has the right to remain silent. A right to something means that you can do it without fear of legal reprisal.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-26 03:44pm

Durandal wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:No. Only if you REFUSE the DNA test are you treated as a suspect.
That means that everyone is a suspect by default, whether or not a connection between all those individuals and the crime has been established or not. That is a blatant violation of due process.

Hmmm I don't quite agree. You aren't a suspect until you refuse the test. Meaning you AREN'T a suspect by default; just "uknown". I doubt the cops would treat those who weren't home for the tests as "suspects".

Furthermore, refusing to submit to a voluntary test cannot be used as grounds for suspicion any more than refusing to allow the government to watch you taking a shit in your bathroom can.

Well I think there's quite a difference between taking a shit and submitting to a DNA test to help solve a crime, don't you?

The fact that police can randomly come to my home, ask for a sample of my DNA and then consider me a suspect in a crime if I refuse is a reprehensible violation of civil liberties.

Maybe. But why would you refuse if you're innocent? I think it's a pretty good tool for the cops.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-08-26 04:25pm

Wait--did they actually test the DNA that they sampled from the people in the neighborhood, or did they simply put them on a "gave a sample" list and eliminated them from the list of potential suspects? There's a big difference there--in the first case, those on the "long list" have been positively eliminated as potential suspects (everyone in the neighborhood is a potential suspect at first, at least until you start eliminating people with alabis or who don't fit the physical evidence). In the second case, you've made exercising your civil liberties grounds for suspicion--and risked that the perp gambled that you wouldn't actually test the DNA, throwing the investigation off his trail.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-26 04:53pm

RedImperator wrote:Wait--did they actually test the DNA that they sampled from the people in the neighborhood, or did they simply put them on a "gave a sample" list and eliminated them from the list of potential suspects?

Don't know.

RedImperator wrote: There's a big difference there--in the first case, those on the "long list" have been positively eliminated as potential suspects (everyone in the neighborhood is a potential suspect at first, at least until you start eliminating people with alabis or who don't fit the physical evidence).

Even DNA evidence isn't a sure thing, so I think even those who submitted to a test would still be potential suspects [though at the very bottom of the list]. DNA evidence doesn't replace actual detective work, it supports it.

RedImperator wrote: In the second case, you've made exercising your civil liberties grounds for suspicion--and risked that the perp gambled that you wouldn't actually test the DNA, throwing the investigation off his trail.

I'm inclined to think they WOULD test the samples. Maybe our resident peace keeper, Perinquus, could clear things up?

And yes, by chosing to refuse a DNA test you've layed grounds for suspicion. And who knows what the State may do with your sample? DNA testing: fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-08-26 04:57pm

BoredShirtless wrote:And yes, by chosing to refuse a DNA test you've layed grounds for suspicion. And who knows what the State may do with your sample? DNA testing: fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

If that's the case, it's a violation of civil liberties and possibly due process. That's fucking serious--if the police gain a search warrant because someone refused to take a DNA test, all the evidence discovered in that search may be thrown out of court. In this case, I don't think they used refusal to test as their only grounds for suspicion, but if I'm the suspect's lawyer, I'd scream about that all the way to the Supreme Court.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-08-26 05:59pm

I don't see what the big deal is. A drop of your saliva and in return a scum bag is taken off the street. How hard is that to figure? Some people here seem to have a high opinion of themselves and assume that the DNA will then be used in some evil goverment plot against them. Get over yourselves. It's because of attitudes like that criminals get away with shit. Bleeing heart no brained liberals make excuses and loopholes for them. Wait till some day when, god forbid, a crime happens against you then we'll see what you think of DNA testing.

Sebastin · Post by **Sebastin** » 2003-08-26 06:22pm

I think the basic problem with DNA screening tests is that it reverses burden of proof. The process is based on eliminating those who can´t have done it until you have a small enough group left to investigate on a case by case basis. This is effectively a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, thus violating one of the most important, if not THE most important, principles of our legal system. Now fortunatly (or not) the "proof" is both highly conclusive as well as unforgeable. So basicaly it boils down to the question: is it okay to violate our most basic legal principles if the violation is very unlikely to cause actual injustice? I see two ways to look at this:

1. DNA screening tests have proven to be highly effective in solving certain crimes. A genetic fingerprint match is highly conclusive evidence and allows to build cases on it alone without any other evidence and with neglible risk of wrong accusations. The evidence being unforgeable, danger of abusing the system is neglible as well.

2. "innocent until proven guilty" is called a PRINCIPLE for a reason. We don´t say "Suspects should usually considered to be innocent except when proof of innocence is easy enough to come by, then they can be considered guilty until proven innocent." A case can be made that this principle should not be compromised under any circumstances, not to create precedence.

I´m reluctant to dismiss DNA screening already since it is highly efficient after all, but i think it is an practice that should be questioned.

Note that there is no problem at all with normal genetic fingerprinting. It is just the practice of using it to screen large groups that is problematic.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-26 07:55pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Hmmm I don't quite agree. You aren't a suspect until you refuse the test. Meaning you AREN'T a suspect by default; just "uknown". I doubt the cops would treat those who weren't home for the tests as "suspects".

Firsly, no, you're not "unknown." You have the presumption of innocence all the way until the jury says you're guilty. You're only a suspect if you can be linked to the crime in some way, such as motivation. If some girl in my town is raped, I'm not a potential suspect. Sorry, this "Everyone's a potential suspect" bullshit doesn't fly.

Secondly, "You aren't a suspect until you refuse the test"? Using my exercise of my right to privacy as motivation to make me a suspect is absurd. What's next? Is refusing to let a cop search my person with no good reason evidence that I have illegal items in my possession?

Well I think there's quite a difference between taking a shit and submitting to a DNA test to help solve a crime, don't you?

Of course there's a difference, but the principle is exactly the same. I'm not obliged to give police officers my DNA every time they're stumped on a case.

Maybe. But why would you refuse if you're innocent? I think it's a pretty good tool for the cops.

Yes, I would certainly refuse. I have a right to privacy, and I enjoy my privacy. Why not just say that a woman's refusal to show her breasts in public means that she must have horrible disfigurements on them, too?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-26 08:34pm

This example highlights the moral dilemma between societal morality and individual rights-based morality.

Every scheme of society-based morality (utilitarianism, Kant's duty ethics, Aristotelian virtue ethics) all vote for giving out the DNA samples, for the simple reason that IT WILL HELP GET A FUCKING CHILD RAPIST/MURDERER OFF THE STREET. But those who worship individual rights above all with no checks and balances on that system of morality invariably decide that their personal privacy and these ethereal rights are worth more than the silly expedient of removing a scumbag from our midst.