Would you stand for police taking your DNA?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

A nice way of rewording your slippery slope fallacy, but a restatement of fallacy nonetheless. The "where does it end" argument is simply a popular rhetorical packaging of that fallacy; it is a BALANCE. There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions.

Ah, so in other words the sky is the limit. Its good to know your defination of the term Rights is "something that soceity can violate whenever it chooses to."

Nowhere. Even the right to life can be taken away by society if it is necessary; this is why the death penalty exists for murder and high treason.

Except that these particular Individulas have violated the "right to life" of other Individuals! We're talking about the rights of innocent human beings here....

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: So, are you agreeing that should a crime be committed by someone then soceity/government could and should violate the rights of innocent Individuals to solve/resolve it?

Darth Wong wrote:Depends on the magnitude of the intrusion. Again, you are painting this in simple-minded black and white terms. We all expect things like a certain right to privacy, but even normal police surveillance routinely goes beyond what we consider acceptable, and that is within existing laws. How would you feel about police monitoring you as you go about your daily life, keeping a record of where you go and where you are at all times? Yet they can do this if they suspect you, and they have the power to do so because it is deemed necessary for society.

The "right" to privacy is an extension of property rights; the police may violate your "right" to privacy as long as it does not interupt your property rights. If they want to search or sieze your property, or the privacy granted by your property rights, they need to meet the requirements set by the 4th Amendment. Your assertion and example do not apply. Answer the question, could and should soceity/government violate the rights of innocent individuals, to resolve a unsolved crime?

How the fuck would crimes get solved in your ideal society?

By investiagation that dosen't rely on violation of property/privacy until 4th Amendment requirements are met. [/quote]

[InnerBrat]

Some major assumptions are being made that I'm going to clear up, here:

Genetic Fingerprinting is not a genome project. It records the repetitions of certain strands of non-coding DNA within your genome, in a way that is unique to you and your identical twin, but 50% similar to your parents and non identical siblings, but it does not record your entire genome. Thee is no way to tell from a genetic fingerprint what your sexuality is, what your IQ is, or who you vote for.

DNA samples taken by the police are usually destroyed - I don't know about the US, but if UK police take a DNA sample to eliminate you from an investigation, they can only keep the results for as long as the investigation lasts. Once you have been eliminated, if you are not arrested, the sample is destoryed. The police database contains the genetic ID of convicted criminals only.

And that is how much of your personal rights are being violated when you help the policecatch a paedophile

[BoredShirtless]

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.

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you're in court; if you've actually been CHARGED. Until the person or people guilty of the crime have been convicted, the law CAN treat everyone as a POTENTIAL suspect.

You're only a suspect if you can be linked to the crime in some way, such as motivation.

Or evidence, like DNA.

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.

What do you mean "it doesn't fly"? Unless you're pro-active and prove to the cops you weren't involved or that their investigation rules you out, why do you have a problem with them considering you a POTENTIAL suspect?

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.

Depends what they want from you. If they want to monitor you taking a shit, they yeah it would be 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?

But they DO have a good reason: to find a child murdering piece of shit!

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.

No, you aren't.

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?

Fine, enjoy your privacy. I have no problems with sacrificing a little bit of mine to help the cops out.

[Edi]

A nice way of rewording your slippery slope fallacy, but a restatement of fallacy nonetheless. The "where does it end" argument is simply a popular rhetorical packaging of that fallacy; it is a BALANCE. There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions.

Ah, so in other words the sky is the limit. Its good to know your defination of the term Rights is "something that soceity can violate whenever it chooses to."

When the hell did you start suffering from such a massive case of Stupid? Nobody is suggesting that due process be thrown to the winds, but you apparently have a very faint grasp of what due process is. A person can be suspected of a crime on as little as a hunch, but if they are to be arrested and/or charged with anything, then and only then do the due process strictures kick in in criminal investigations. If due process is observed, then the case is most definitely not one of "Whenever society chooses to violate people's rights". If due process is ignored, then you do have a problem, but it's a whole different problem entirely.

Nowhere. Even the right to life can be taken away by society if it is necessary; this is why the death penalty exists for murder and high treason.

Except that these particular Individulas have violated the "right to life" of other Individuals! We're talking about the rights of innocent human beings here....

What the hell are you trying to say here, or are these just crack-induced ravings? A murderer by definition has violated somebody else's right to life, but that does not mean that he can be deprived of same without due process. He can and in many cases (in the US anyway) will be deprived of his right to life, but it is not a summary issue. There isn't any point to this ranting of yours that I can see. Oh, wait! You mean it's a huge violation of somebody's rights that they're suspected of a crime? Well, boo-fucking-hoo, I already covered that. They can suspect, if they want to arrest or charge you, then it's due process time.

So, are you agreeing that should a crime be committed by someone then soceity/government could and should violate the rights of innocent Individuals to solve/resolve it?

Depends on the magnitude of the intrusion. Again, you are painting this in simple-minded black and white terms. We all expect things like a certain right to privacy, but even normal police surveillance routinely goes beyond what we consider acceptable, and that is within existing laws. How would you feel about police monitoring you as you go about your daily life, keeping a record of where you go and where you are at all times? Yet they can do this if they suspect you, and they have the power to do so because it is deemed necessary for society.

The "right" to privacy is an extension of property rights; the police may violate your "right" to privacy as long as it does not interupt your property rights. If they want to search or sieze your property, or the privacy granted by your property rights, they need to meet the requirements set by the 4th Amendment. Your assertion and example do not apply. Answer the question, could and should soceity/government violate the rights of innocent individuals, to resolve a unsolved crime?

Newsflash, idiot: The world does not revolve around the US and your precious 4th amendment isn't universally applicable. Places like Canada and Finland and Sweden and Germany have other ways of solving privacy rights than deriving them from property rights, and that still changes nothing in the dilemma of individual versus societal rights. And the answer to your question, as already answered many times, is that yes, the government should have that power, tempered by due process. If the due process laws have been crafted competently, then it will not be a porblem no matter how badly you want to make it look like one.

How the fuck would crimes get solved in your ideal society?

By investiagation that dosen't rely on violation of property/privacy until 4th Amendment requirements are met.

Asking somebody to voluntarily give a DNA sample is not a violation of their property rights or their privacy rights. If that results in increased suspicion, then so be it. You are still entitled to due process, which requires them, if they do want the sample, to go out and get that warrant for it, and they're probably going to be asking you a lot of other questions too even before that to establish that you are or are not a suspect. You're raising a stink over something you obviously have little understanding of.

Edi

[Bob McDob]

Nobody explained to me yet how DNA samples can be used to engineer fantasitcal monstrosities capable of destroying society

[BoredShirtless]

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.

No, by the very nature of asking for it, they've implied that you are a suspect.

EVERYONE is a POTENTIAL suspect until ruled out. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you refuse, you just become more of a suspect.

No. You go from "potential suspect" to "suspect". There is NO GOOD REASON to refuse a DNA test, so the cops making that leap isn't surprising.

While if you agree, they clear you. Moreover, they've implied that you're a criminal simply for being one of 10,000 {insert your democraphic. group here} in the area.

Bullshit. Being a "potential suspect" DOESN'T imply you're a criminal.

They don't have any real cause to suspect you, but they've decided to treat you as a criminal until -you- prove otherwise.

Rubbish. Criminals aren't given options like refusing tests.

[CorSec]

What part about first step did you not understand? You do realize that the DNA request was the second step, right?

Let's take another look at the context:

Originally, you wrote: "...the police got fed up with their lack of progress and started going around the neighbourhood of the murdered girl asking for DNA samples from everybody."

You made it a point to stress the everybody, from which anyone could reason that it really means everybody.

As a result of asking everybody they made two lists. On the first were those who submitted a sample on the other were those who refused. But in your own words: "They got the bastard, because the people who refused to give out DNA samples were put on a short list, and when you have a short list, you'll be able to narrow it down to a shorter list without too much trouble (simply culling it down to single men living alone is the first obvious step)."

From this, I understood it to mean that they first sampled DNA from everybody in the neighborhood. Those who declined to submit a sample were put on a list and that list could be easily pared to single men who live alone. Not to belabour my point any further, I resubmit my question: Couldn't they have skipped the request for DNA samples by investigating single men who live alone in the neighborhood if that were such an obvious step?

[CorSec]

Some major assumptions are being made that I'm going to clear up, here:

Genetic Fingerprinting is not a genome project. It records the repetitions of certain strands of non-coding DNA within your genome, in a way that is unique to you and your identical twin, but 50% similar to your parents and non identical siblings, but it does not record your entire genome. Thee is no way to tell from a genetic fingerprint what your sexuality is, what your IQ is, or who you vote for.

DNA samples taken by the police are usually destroyed - I don't know about the US, but if UK police take a DNA sample to eliminate you from an investigation, they can only keep the results for as long as the investigation lasts. Once you have been eliminated, if you are not arrested, the sample is destoryed. The police database contains the genetic ID of convicted criminals only.

And that is how much of your personal rights are being violated when you help the policecatch a paedophile

Thanks for the information, innerbrat. That is most helpful. If this is the case in the US, and my state specifically then my doubts about the procedure are more than 90% allayed and I would help my community put murderous paedophiles where they belong.

[Durandal]

They presumably performed actual DNA tests on the samples, but that is not confirmed.

Presumably? I'm not exactly sure how long it takes to run through a DNA sample these days, but a neighborhood's worth of samples is still a pretty tall order, and I honestly don't think it comes cheaply, either.

If we ignore due process considerations for a second, it is much more feasible for the police to simply go around and ask for DNA samples, and then just eliminate suspects entirely on the basis of their willingness to give up their DNA. They'd save the costs of storing the samples, shipping them off to a lab and then waiting around for the results.

So, honestly, the only reason for the police to even test it would be to respect the rights of individuals. Given that the people who gave them their samples already waived their right to privacy, there's precious little motivation for the police to do so. So basically what you have is people who simply don't feel comfortable giving their genetic material to a government agency being put on a list of potential child molesters.

Yes. Why is that so unreasonable? The person who committed the crime was most likely in the neighbourhood.

While that's true, if I have no demonstrable connection to the crime other than the fact that I live in the same general area as the victim, why do I have to prove to the police that I didn't do it? That is something that is assumed.

If you get put on the suspect list for refusing to give out a DNA sample, you still have nothing to worry about unless you're doing something wrong. If police start following you around and looking into your background, what are they going to discover?

Nothing on the order of child molestation. Does that mean that I want them following me around? Suspects in criminal investigations (in most states that I'm aware of) have restrictions placed on them while they're suspects. Unless police have a legitimate reason to suspect someone in a crime, which does not include, "Well he didn't voluntarily give up his genetic material when we asked him to with no justification," that person should not have said restrictions placed on him.

They said they would, but there's no way to tell. Obviously, they would not tell anyone if they weren't bothering to test the samples!

See my first paragraph. The logistics and cost, both in time and money of testing, combined with the simple fact that no one would know anyway, doesn't make me confident that they actually tested these samples.

That's why they couldn't lay charges until they had something more. But considering someone a suspect is much different than laying charges.

But you still have legal restrictions placed on you when you're a suspect (you can't leave the general area, for example). So the law has already impeded on your life.

Do you seriously think the police require due process in order to consider someone a suspect and put him under closer surveillance? They can do it on a fucking hunch, as long as they don't do things like breaking into his apartment.

Which is precisely why I don't want to be considered a suspect! I don't want the fucking police watching what I do just all the time because I didn't hand over my genetic material to them with a smile on my face. Should I be treated as a suspect because I don't let police randomly give me laxatives in an airport to prove that I'm not smuggling cocaine in my rectum?

[SirNitram]

Give up my DNA fingerprint to help catch a killer? Sure. I'll even give you a strand of hair for it, on top of the swab.

I don't know what the big deal is. The samples taken aren't exactly full of information on you, and while it is a small blow to individual rights, it's not some inevitable sign that we're going to be barcoded and herded in front of cameras all day like some seem to imply. Then again, I'm a Briton; we never really got into the mindless worship of the individual over the society.

[Howedar]

Since several people have clearly stated as much, I fail to see how this is a strawman, unless you are selectively looking at particular posts which did not say this (an asinine approach, since one cannot fashion a rebuttal to simultaneously address every single post from numerous different people coming at it from different angles and with different positions).

Yeah, I know. Its a bitch.

Actually, Durandal was arguing that merely asking for voluntary DNA samples was a serious problem. And the DNA procedure was critical in their investigation; do you know how difficult it is to solve these kinds of killings where the murderer has no relation to the victim?

Well thats what I get for only skimming the thread...


Sorry.

[Xenophobe3691]

Sure. As long as they destroy the sample afterwards

[Faram]

Late kommer but sure I would give a sample for DNA testing.

I am a blood donor so I figure if they really want the DNA they already have pleny of samples from me.

[BoredShirtless]

They presumably performed actual DNA tests on the samples, but that is not confirmed.

Presumably? I'm not exactly sure how long it takes to run through a DNA sample these days, but a neighborhood's worth of samples is still a pretty tall order, and I honestly don't think it comes cheaply, either.

From http://www.northants.police.uk/dna/06.htm:

"Profiling takes between 16 and 24 hours in the laboratory depending on the sample. Much of the process is automated and costs are kept down by processing in batches.

Each sample profiled currently costs the force about £40"

If we ignore due process considerations for a second, it is much more feasible for the police to simply go around and ask for DNA samples, and then just eliminate suspects entirely on the basis of their willingness to give up their DNA. They'd save the costs of storing the samples, shipping them off to a lab and then waiting around for the results.

Bwwwahaha!!! Do you seriously think the cops would eliminate people BEFORE comparing the samples with that taken from the victim? Not even the laziest cop in the world would make such a mammoth leap in detective work! Only if criminals are of sound mind and their behaviour predictable can you say with confidence a criminal would never submit to a DNA test. But not all criminals ARE of sound mind. OR predictable. In fact I'd argue that nearly ALL murderers are of unsound mind and EXTREMLY unpredictable!

So, honestly, the only reason for the police to even test it would be to respect the rights of individuals.

Honestly, are you really this self-absorbed? The reason to actually profile the samples is very clear: to find the criminal. This isn't about you. The cops wouldn't give you a second thought once they got your sample. In other words, the rights of individuals do not direct their actions, the case does.

Given that the people who gave them their samples already waived their right to privacy, there's precious little motivation for the police to do so.

Uh huh, trying to find a match is "precious little motivation"

So basically what you have is people who simply don't feel comfortable giving their genetic material to a government agency being put on a list of potential child molesters.

Why are you uncomfortable with a DNA test? It's not like the cops are asking for your money or time; just a bit of spit. Improve your society by doing your bit to help find a killer. Your privacy is breached all the time without your permission, this is definitely an improvement.

Yes. Why is that so unreasonable? The person who committed the crime was most likely in the neighbourhood.

While that's true, if I have no demonstrable connection to the crime other than the fact that I live in the same general area as the victim, why do I have to prove to the police that I didn't do it? That is something that is assumed.

No it isn't. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you're in court; if you've been charged. Until the person or people guilty of the crime have been convicted, the law can treat everyone as a potential suspect.

If you get put on the suspect list for refusing to give out a DNA sample, you still have nothing to worry about unless you're doing something wrong. If police start following you around and looking into your background, what are they going to discover?

Nothing on the order of child molestation. Does that mean that I want them following me around? Suspects in criminal investigations (in most states that I'm aware of) have restrictions placed on them while they're suspects. Unless police have a legitimate reason to suspect someone in a crime, which does not include, "Well he didn't voluntarily give up his genetic material when we asked him to with no justification," that person should not have said restrictions placed on him.

False dilemma fallacy. Those restrictions don't have to be applied to people who refuse the test; there are "degrees" of suspicion.

They said they would, but there's no way to tell. Obviously, they would not tell anyone if they weren't bothering to test the samples!

See my first paragraph. The logistics and cost, both in time and money of testing, combined with the simple fact that no one would know anyway, doesn't make me confident that they actually tested these samples.

It isn't as costly or as time consuming as you think, see my first paragraph.

That's why they couldn't lay charges until they had something more. But considering someone a suspect is much different than laying charges.

But you still have legal restrictions placed on you when you're a suspect (you can't leave the general area, for example). So the law has already impeded on your life.

Prove the cops were impeding the lives of those who refused the test.

Do you seriously think the police require due process in order to consider someone a suspect and put him under closer surveillance? They can do it on a fucking hunch, as long as they don't do things like breaking into his apartment.

Which is precisely why I don't want to be considered a suspect! I don't want the fucking police watching what I do just all the time because I didn't hand over my genetic material to them with a smile on my face.

Do the test then. Your position would make a lot more sense if you showed how your DNA could be used against you.

Should I be treated as a suspect because I don't let police randomly give me laxatives in an airport to prove that I'm not smuggling cocaine in my rectum?

Again with your stupid analogies.

[Durandal]

From http://www.northants.police.uk/dna/06.htm:

"Profiling takes between 16 and 24 hours in the laboratory depending on the sample. Much of the process is automated and costs are kept down by processing in batches.

Each sample profiled currently costs the force about £40"

Okay, so we've got about, what, $60 US per person? How big is Mike's neighborhood? How large was the search? My hometown has 20,000 people. Even if they only profile 1,000 people, that's $60,000. On a town scale, this is actually a decent chunk of change.

How many tests can be performed in a day? 50? That still leaves 20 days to go through the whole batch of 1,000. Try thinking a little bit next time, asswipe. Get me a rate, then we can talk.

Bwwwahaha!!! Do you seriously think the cops would eliminate people BEFORE comparing the samples with that taken from the victim? Not even the laziest cop in the world would make such a mammoth leap in detective work! Only if criminals are of sound mind and their behaviour predictable can you say with confidence a criminal would never submit to a DNA test. But not all criminals ARE of sound mind. OR predictable. In fact I'd argue that nearly ALL murderers are of unsound mind and EXTREMLY unpredictable!

Nice contradiction, since you support making people suspects for refusing to turn in their DNA. If criminals are not of sound mind and behavior, then why were you arguing that it was okay to make people suspects on the basis of sound mind and behavior? Do you even attempt to maintain consistency in your arguments?

Honestly, are you really this self-absorbed? The reason to actually profile the samples is very clear: to find the criminal. This isn't about you. The cops wouldn't give you a second thought once they got your sample. In other words, the rights of individuals do not direct their actions, the case does.

Bullshit. Child molesters know they did something wrong, or at least something that they can be punished for. That's why parents who molest their children tell their children not to tell anyone, you fucking idiot. Why the fuck would a child molester happily hand out his DNA to the cops?

Uh huh, trying to find a match is "precious little motivation"

According to your earlier posts, you supported the idea that people be made suspects after refusing to give up their DNA. This means that you support the idea of gathering a list of suspects based solely on their exercise of their right to privacy. Where does "trying to find a match" fit in there?

So what's your stance? Do you argue that cops should run around, collecting DNA from people and then trimming the suspect list down based on who turns their sample in and who doesn't? Or do you argue that, since criminals are not of "sound mind and judgment," cops should test every sample they receive, effectively meaning that they ignore the person's willingness to turn in his DNA, because a criminal might be dumb enough to hand it over?

Why are you uncomfortable with a DNA test? It's not like the cops are asking for your money or time; just a bit of spit. Improve your society by doing your bit to help find a killer. Your privacy is breached all the time without your permission, this is definitely an improvement.

I don't want to submit my DNA for the same reason I don't want people listening to my phone calls. It's my fucking business, not yours.

No it isn't. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you're in court; if you've been charged. Until the person or people guilty of the crime have been convicted, the law can treat everyone as a potential suspect.

Bullshit. The presumption of innocence applies all the way from the suspicion to the arrest to the court.

You're not seriously arguing that police officers can harass people all they want as long as they never charge them, are you? Why do you think cops need warrants to search people's homes? Why do you think that I can tell a cop to go fuck himself if he wants to search me and my car after pulling me over simply for speeding?

False dilemma fallacy. Those restrictions don't have to be applied to people who refuse the test; there are "degrees" of suspicion.

A suspect is someone who does not have an alibi and can be linked to the crime through motivation, weapon or through another direct manner. I'm not a suspect if someone gets murdered in my community.

It isn't as costly or as time consuming as you think, see my first paragraph.

Which you refused to scale up on the order of a neighborhood's worth, and failed to provide a rate for, so we have no idea how long it would take for a batch of samples.

Prove the cops were impeding the lives of those who refused the test.

I'd like to see more details on this affair, first. Violating civil rights is violating civil rights. Mike also intimated that the cops might have been following around people who refused the test.

Do the test then. Your position would make a lot more sense if you showed how your DNA could be used against you.

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm under no obligation to exonerate myself if there is no evidence against me. That's how the law fucking works.

Should I be treated as a suspect because I don't let police randomly give me laxatives in an airport to prove that I'm not smuggling cocaine in my rectum?

Again with your stupid analogies.

Nice rebuttal, dumbass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

Which is why I opt for option number 3. while I personaly find it distastful that the police are treating me as a suspect, I recognize the necessity, and will submit to the test... on the sole condition that they destroy the sample and any informtion gleaned from it, and any record that the sample was collected, after I have been eliminated.

I will make sure they honor this aggreement by making them sign a contract that makes them legally obligated to do so, and will insist on seeing the records destroyed, and being present fot the testing and analysis.

--I guess a legally binding agreement is good enough for me too so long as the gov. doesn't have a "get out of contract for free" option. However, I don't trust the current U.S. gov. hold its end of the bargain.

WHch is why they sign a legally bnding contract before a judge and witnesses before they touch my DNA. And considering soon, I will know the basics of testing(AP bio is beautiful) And by the time I am a home owner, I will KNOW the procedure and what everything means like the back of my hand.

A part of the contract will be me being present for every stage of the tsting, profiling, and DISPOSAL of the sample, any documents regarding them, and any records of my police contact.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, so we've got about, what, $60 US per person? How big is Mike's neighborhood? How large was the search? My hometown has 20,000 people.

They knew the abduction and murder happened very close to her home; they didn't have to go through the entire community which numbers more than 100,000.

Nice contradiction, since you support making people suspects for refusing to turn in their DNA.

Everyone in the vicinity is already a suspect. The act of asking people for voluntary DNA samples removes people from the suspect list; it does not add them to it.

According to your earlier posts, you supported the idea that people be made suspects after refusing to give up their DNA.

Strawman distortion. They were already suspects; some of them merely helped the police do their job by conveniently eliminating themselves as suspects via this request.

So what's your stance? Do you argue that cops should run around, collecting DNA from people and then trimming the suspect list down based on who turns their sample in and who doesn't?

Ah, so you understand that the idea is to take people off the list of suspects, not put them on. Please explain, then, why you are deliberately distorting that argument in the rest of your post.

I don't want to submit my DNA for the same reason I don't want people listening to my phone calls. It's my fucking business, not yours.

So is the place where you eat your lunch, the hotel where you have a quickie with some girl you just met, etc. Nevertheless, the police can monitor all of that activity on a whim, like it or not.

Contrary to the asinine bleatings of people who subscribe to black/white fallacies pitting society against the individual as if it's some kind of bloodsucking vampire feeding on divinely anointed rights, concepts of human morality (including rights) are a purely societal construct. Do you have the right to refuse the DNA test? Yes. Do you have the right to refuse to co-operate with the police and expect them to remove you from suspicion for a crime where you fit the profile of the killer and you had opportunity? No fucking way.

[Durandal]

They knew the abduction and murder happened very close to her home; they didn't have to go through the entire community which numbers more than 100,000.
...
Everyone in the vicinity is already a suspect. The act of asking people for voluntary DNA samples removes people from the suspect list; it does not add them to it.

That's where we're conflicting then. Is a suspect in the way you're referring to him just someone who was physically able to commit the crime, or is he someone that they can link to the crime with a motive or uncorroborated alibi?

Strawman distortion. They were already suspects; some of them merely helped the police do their job by conveniently eliminating themselves as suspects via this request.

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".

It may not be your position, but it would seem to be his.

Ah, so you understand that the idea is to take people off the list of suspects, not put them on. Please explain, then, why you are deliberately distorting that argument in the rest of your post.

I'm trying to clarify his stance. I know yours.

So is the place where you eat your lunch, the hotel where you have a quickie with some girl you just met, etc. Nevertheless, the police can monitor all of that activity on a whim, like it or not.

The place I eat lunch can be a public place, and I really have no problem with public surveillance. It's just an extension of the old idea of having a neighborhood cop on the corner.

As far as I know, police require a warrant to tap a phone line or bug a hotel room. It's not "on a whim," at least not in the States. Sure, they could just tap my line without a warrant if they wanted, but any decent lawyer would get those tapings thrown out as evidence.

Contrary to the asinine bleatings of people who subscribe to black/white fallacies pitting society against the individual as if it's some kind of bloodsucking vampire feeding on divinely anointed rights, concepts of human morality (including rights) are a purely societal construct. Do you have the right to refuse the DNA test? Yes. Do you have the right to refuse to co-operate with the police and expect them to remove you from suspicion for a crime where you fit the profile of the killer and you had opportunity? No fucking way.

Ah, what's this about fitting the profile of a killer? If the police came to my house and said that a man fitting my description is suspected of raping and murdering a child, and then asked for my DNA (or an alibi; I assume they'd ask for that first), I'd happily submit it to prove my innocence, because that's a direct link between me and the crime.

[Nova Andromeda]

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.

--This is what I'm arguing against not your original moral dilema where you can either hide behind a legal loophole or say that those who don't volunteer won't be punished.

Guilt by association is a fallacious way to debate, and it won't help you here. There is no power associated with having a record of someone's DNA. No one is being forcibly confined, no one is being harmed in any OBJECTIVE WAY.

-This is not quilt by association. One of the major things stopping him from monitoring our every action (which can easily be justified using your reasoning since it would prevent nearly every crime excepting the gov.) is privacy protections.

They can already monitor your every action, dumb-ass. If they put you under surveillance, they will know where you go and when. They will know who you hang out with, whether you're cheating on your girlfriend, everything. The wiretap provisions in the Patriot act are a tempest in a teapot. It is Ashcroft's disregard for due process which has people up in arms; nobody is particularly excited about the wiretap changes because they don't mean shit and barely change anything.

--You have to be a suspect before they can put you under surveilllance (perhaps this is the due process you refer to). Fishing expeditions are forbidden for the expressed purpose of preventing abuse by those in power since it allows them to selectively enforce all sorts of normally unenforced/unenforcable laws. A DNA sweep is nothing more than a fishing expedition. If you say a DNA sweep is okay then why wouldn't it also be okay to put anyone under continuous surveillance for no known reason (just like Ashcroft wants to do)? Of course, who is put under surveillance will be decided by those in power and subject to all sorts of bias totally unrelated to law enforcement.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is no power associated with having everyone's DNA record on file forever or that such power cannot be used to subvert the gov. given current legal protections.

Bullshit. You are proposing that there is some immense power associated with having a sample of someone's DNA; the burden of proof is on YOU. You have not even explained precisely what this power IS, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to disprove it? What particular type of crack have you been smoking?

-This isn't some game we're playing! We don't have the luxury of being wrong. If there is power associated with such information and it gets exploited who knows what damage might be done (perhaps a little perhap a lot). Your refusal to even TRY to explain how vast knowledge about someone's genetic makeup doesn't translate into power isn't going to win you my support. Oh wait, you aren't looking for my support are you?

Explain how a DNA record gives the government increased power.

--Knowledge is power

Pithy one-line bullshit does not constitute a valid argument. Explain how the DNA record gives the government increased power. What kind of harmful new powers will it have?

-It is difficult to predict how genetic information will be used in 40 years time. However, it is clear the U.S. gov. will have gained precise data on exactly what genetic predispositions everyone has. The U.S. gov. almost (if not already) has detailed knowledge on every citizens' history (including the environment they grew up in). You already know about TIA and yet you would give them everyone's DNA to add to the system? Even if DNA is not very useful right now just wait 20-40 years when we've sorted out exactly how our genetics influences our future behavior.

but even so the burden of proof is not on me since you are the one proposing a change.

I am not proposing a change, dumb-ass. Read the opening post. I am talking about an ethical dilemma, and you have engaged in obvious and transparent strawman distortions in order to throw me off the trail. Won't work.

-I don't have a problem with the original post if I can verify that my DNA cannot be used for other purposes. Of course, that's the problem. I can't think of a realistic mechanism that would allow me to make such a verification.

At any rate, if I was a southern politician and I had access to everyone's DNA I might leak certain information about my political opponents bias toward homosexuality (or take your pick of genetic predispositions).

That is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard. Not only could a private investigator discover someone's homosexuality much more easily, but there is no confirmed "gay gene" anyway.

--It was an example of a potential use. In addition, this the technique would be used against politician who isn't actually gay, but is just predisposed to being gay. Regardless, the nature of the predisposition doesn't matter. What matters is whether people have genetic predispositions that could be unfairly used against them and thus exploited by opponents with access to such info.

Slippery slope fallacy.

-Let me outline how this works:
Step A: Collect DNA from everyone in order to prevent crime. (A given if we adopt your position)
Step B1: Save DNA samples. (Highly likely unless protections are setup which you have not described)
Step B2: Significantly advance scientific research on human genetics such that a person's behavioral predispositions can be predicted. (Highly likely given a time frame of 20-40 years and the current rate of scientific advancement)
Step C: Find a way to exploit knowledge of a people's genetic information to advance whatever cause you happen to have. (Since a person's genetics is essentially their blue print I find it hard to imagine that a bit of study wouldn't allow you to manipulate them in some way or bias laws for or against them)
Step D: Use the exploit from Step C. (A certainty given enough time and highly likely even within a couple decades)
-Where exactly is you slippery slope?

Your only attempt to provide an example of the government doing something harmful with DNA records (assuming they lied and kept the records rather than destroying them as they said they would) is your ridiculous bullshit about the government enacting discriminatory laws based on DNA. As if they couldn't already enact discriminatory laws based on visibly obvious characteristics if they wanted to. What kind of idiot thinks that the only way to identify a dyslexic or homosexual is DNA analysis?

-It is much easier to pass laws that are discriminatory based on characteristics which are not visible than it is to pass them on visable ones such as skin color. Since visable characteristics are less obvious and lead to less political cost for passing such discriminatory laws.

[Darth Wong]

That's where we're conflicting then. Is a suspect in the way you're referring to him just someone who was physically able to commit the crime, or is he someone that they can link to the crime with a motive or uncorroborated alibi?

In the case of random killings, there is no traceable motive (is any of this news to anyone?!?!?). This means that anybody with opportunity becomes a suspect, particularly if he happens to be a single male living alone.

Ah, what's this about fitting the profile of a killer? If the police came to my house and said that a man fitting my description is suspected of raping and murdering a child, and then asked for my DNA (or an alibi; I assume they'd ask for that first), I'd happily submit it to prove my innocence, because that's a direct link between me and the crime.

What if police came to your house and said that the killer almost certainly lives within a few city blocks of the victim, and that they're asking for DNA samples from everybody in that radius in order to narrow down their search? Keep in mind that unless you're blindingly ignorant, you already know perfectly well that these kinds of random killings are almost impossible to solve since there is not necessarily a traceable motive or personal connection between killer and victim.

Any single man living alone in the target area was an automatic suspect. Anyone who refused to give a DNA sample in the target area was an automatic suspect. Cross-referencing the two lists gave a much smaller list to work with, and presto! They got the bastard.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. Lets break this down a little.

While you have the right to rpivacy, and this must not be infringed. You still have a moral obligation to assit in a murder case. You have rights, so long as your rights do not harm another.

Now, this does not mean you cannot protect your freedoms through legal means(contracts, legistlation etc)

[Durandal]

In the case of random killings, there is no traceable motive (is any of this news to anyone?!?!?). This means that anybody with opportunity becomes a suspect, particularly if he happens to be a single male living alone.

Why can't they just ask for an alibi? Why is jumping straight to a DNA test necessary?

What if police came to your house and said that the killer almost certainly lives within a few city blocks of the victim, and that they're asking for DNA samples from everybody in that radius in order to narrow down their search? Keep in mind that unless you're blindingly ignorant, you already know perfectly well that these kinds of random killings are almost impossible to solve since there is not necessarily a traceable motive or personal connection between killer and victim.

Any single man living alone in the target area was an automatic suspect. Anyone who refused to give a DNA sample in the target area was an automatic suspect. Cross-referencing the two lists gave a much smaller list to work with, and presto! They got the bastard.

I guess I can't really argue against that effectively. Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

[Edi]

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

I think things like this get so heated because of the general tendency in American society to polarize every issue to the opposing extremes and then start working from there, instead of assuming a neutral ground to begin from. I've noticed this happening in most discussions with Americans over almost any political issue.

Edi

[BoredShirtless]

From http://www.northants.police.uk/dna/06.htm:

"Profiling takes between 16 and 24 hours in the laboratory depending on the sample. Much of the process is automated and costs are kept down by processing in batches.

Each sample profiled currently costs the force about £40"

Okay, so we've got about, what, $60 US per person? How big is Mike's neighborhood? How large was the search? My hometown has 20,000 people. Even if they only profile 1,000 people, that's $60,000. On a town scale, this is actually a decent chunk of change.


How many tests can be performed in a day? 50? That still leaves 20 days to go through the whole batch of 1,000. Try thinking a little bit next time, asswipe. Get me a rate, then we can talk.

I didn't say the information above can be applied as-is to the case. You were speaking from utter ignorance when you assumed it would be too time consuming and expensive, so I provided some info to clear things up a little.

Bwwwahaha!!! Do you seriously think the cops would eliminate people BEFORE comparing the samples with that taken from the victim? Not even the laziest cop in the world would make such a mammoth leap in detective work! Only if criminals are of sound mind and their behaviour predictable can you say with confidence a criminal would never submit to a DNA test. But not all criminals ARE of sound mind. OR predictable. In fact I'd argue that nearly ALL murderers are of unsound mind and EXTREMLY unpredictable!

Nice contradiction, since you support making people suspects for refusing to turn in their DNA. If criminals are not of sound mind and behaviour, then why were you arguing that it was okay to make people suspects on the basis of sound mind and behaviour? Do you even attempt to maintain consistency in your arguments?

It's impossible to determine whether actions, even though sane and logical, were produced through a fit mind. A diseased mind can "fake" it. People wear facades all the time; you have no way of knowing whether a criminal isn't capable of wearing one to pass as "normal". But what if the facade slips? That's why it would be utter lunacy for cops to dismiss a suspect before profiling his DNA simply because he DID something of sound mind like co-operate a little.

Moving back to the case. They drew up a list of suspects based on those who refused the test. What if those suspects all had alibis? You seem to think the cops would have threw away all those samples BEFORE that conclusion could be made! You seem so confident of this. I'd like to know where you got all this confidence from.

Honestly, are you really this self-absorbed? The reason to actually profile the samples is very clear: to find the criminal. This isn't about you. The cops wouldn't give you a second thought once they got your sample. In other words, the rights of individuals do not direct their actions, the case does.

Bullshit. Child molesters know they did something wrong, or at least something that they can be punished for. That's why parents who molest their children tell their children not to tell anyone, you fucking idiot.

You are NOT capable of predicting the behaviour of a child murderer. Humans are unpredictable, and your attempts to analyse a child murderer using logic and common sense makes your analysis even worse. Get this through your head: cops do NOT eliminate suspects based on their behaviour only. A suspect may be 100% co-operating, and still 100% guilty.

Why the fuck would a child molester happily hand out his DNA to the cops?

See my facade analogy above.

Uh huh, trying to find a match is "precious little motivation"

According to your earlier posts, you supported the idea that people be made suspects after refusing to give up their DNA. This means that you support the idea of gathering a list of suspects based solely on their exercise of their right to privacy. Where does "trying to find a match" fit in there?

You claimed there was "precious little motivation" to actually profile samples. Well I'm telling you, the motivation is to MATCH IT with that taken from the victim. This would probably be "phase 2", put in motion if the suspects who refused the tests are found to be innocent.

So what's your stance? Do you argue that cops should run around, collecting DNA from people and then trimming the suspect list down based on who turns their sample in and who doesn't?

You're confusing my argument with Mike's. Unlike Mike, I don't think people are automatically suspects. I said POTENTIAL suspects; you only BECOME a suspect here if you REFUSE the test. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Or do you argue that, since criminals are not of "sound mind and judgment," cops should test every sample they receive, effectively meaning that they ignore the person's willingness to turn in his DNA, because a criminal might be dumb enough to hand it over?

How can you be so positive a criminal WOULDN'T be dumb enough...or smart enough...to submit a sample?

• Dumb - doesn't know a DNA match is practically a sure thing to get him convicted
• Smart [your kind of smart which in reality wouldn't fool the cops but anyway...] - that there is no potential for it to be profiled at a later date because it's just "too expensive and time consumiung" and the tests were ONLY performed to draw up a list of suspects who refused them

Why are you uncomfortable with a DNA test? It's not like the cops are asking for your money or time; just a bit of spit. Improve your society by doing your bit to help find a killer. Your privacy is breached all the time without your permission, this is definitely an improvement.

I don't want to submit my DNA for the same reason I don't want people listening to my phone calls. It's my fucking business, not yours.

What a wonderful attitude you have. Instead of helping the community find a paedophilic murderer, you're practising your civil liberties at a very inappropriate time for absolutely NO GOOD REASON. Give and take! Help them out. Do you actually HAVE concerns about submitting your DNA to the State? Or this is only about your rights, and the potential to use the practise of your rights against you?

No it isn't. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you're in court; if you've been charged. Until the person or people guilty of the crime have been convicted, the law can treat everyone as a potential suspect.

Bullshit. The presumption of innocence applies all the way from the suspicion to the arrest to the court.

No it doesn't. Finding criminals and convicting them are two different things. The second that child’s body was found, everyone become a potential suspect. And why not? The cops know absolutely nothing except that a body is on the ground. It could have been anyone.

Now as the cops investigate the crime, they'll draw up a list of suspects from the pool of potential suspects. If a suspect is found to be clear of the crime, only THEN can he be called innocent.

But when it goes to court, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You're not seriously arguing that police officers can harass people all they want as long as they never charge them, are you?

Never said that, nor does my position imply that.

Why do you think cops need warrants to search people's homes? Why do you think that I can tell a cop to go fuck himself if he wants to search me and my car after pulling me over simply for speeding?

What a straw man. You have yet to prove those who refused the test were impeded or harassed in anyway whatsoever.

False dilemma fallacy. Those restrictions don't have to be applied to people who refuse the test; there are "degrees" of suspicion.

A suspect is someone who does not have an alibi and can be linked to the crime through motivation, weapon or through another direct manner. I'm not a suspect if someone gets murdered in my community.

No, you aren't, but you ARE a potential suspect unless proven innocent. And I accept your concession that there are degrees of suspicion, and that not every degree will get the same amount of police attention.

It isn't as costly or as time consuming as you think, see my first paragraph.

Which you refused to scale up on the order of a neighborhood's worth, and failed to provide a rate for, so we have no idea how long it would take for a batch of samples.

I couldn't and never tried to scale up as I didn't have the necessary information. Once again, I didn't try to pass it off as a definitive counter to your assumptions that costs and time are too great.

Do the test then. Your position would make a lot more sense if you showed how your DNA could be used against you.

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm under no obligation to exonerate myself if there is no evidence against me. That's how the law fucking works.

Refusing the DNA test IS evidence! It may not be admissible in court, but it is a sign that raises suspicion, and therefore warrants an investigation for possible connections to the crime.

Should I be treated as a suspect because I don't let police randomly give me laxatives in an airport to prove that I'm not smuggling cocaine in my rectum?

Again with your stupid analogies.

Nice rebuttal, dumbass.

Self-elected social control always did rub me the wrong way.

[BoredShirtless]

Or do you argue that, since criminals are not of "sound mind and judgment," cops should test every sample they receive, effectively meaning that they ignore the person's willingness to turn in his DNA, because a criminal might be dumb enough to hand it over?

How can you be so positive a criminal WOULDN'T be dumb enough...or smart enough...to submit a sample?

• Dumb - doesn't know a DNA match is practically a sure thing to get him convicted
• Smart [your kind of smart which in reality wouldn't fool the cops but anyway...] - that there is no potential for it to be profiled at a later date because it's just "too expensive and time consumiung" and the tests were ONLY performed to draw up a list of suspects who refused them

Another option:
3. Insane - the ultimate in unpredictable behaviour