Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Scalia makes a funny, for a good cause. (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey, I think a law that everyone be obligated to (6+ / 0-)

    submit their DNA should be enacted.  Just think of how many crimes could be solved that way.

    Then again, maybe there should be a suspicion that someone committed a crime first?  Maybe even to this odd level of probable cause that they committed the crime?

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:24:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why would that standard not hold... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TX Unmuzzled

      ...for running an arrestee's fingerprints through the database to see if there are any other crimes in which he/she is a suspect?

      If you're going to suggest that running an arrestee's prints is unreasonable too, there's definitely an argument to be made there, but I don't see any argument for the reasonableness of running fingerprints that doesn't also hold for DNA.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:53:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because they don't take a part of a person's body (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        to run fingerprints.  There has always been a significant distinction between the requirements for fingerprinting and that of invading a person's being to obtain the necessary sample for DNA testing.  

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:38:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are not amputating a limb. They take a few (0+ / 0-)

          cheek cells, probably less than are lost while brushing or flossing.

          *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

          by glorificus on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:47:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  if there's no reason to take DNA (0+ / 0-)

            then they shouldn't be taking it.

            relax relate release

            by terrypinder on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:52:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If there's no reason to fingerprint... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus

              ...then they shouldn't be doing that either.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:14:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thousands of unsolved rapes, assaults and murders (0+ / 0-)

              are a hell of a reason.

              *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

              by glorificus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:28:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not to me (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jahiegel, fuzzyguy

                if someone robs a house and they're not immediately a suspect in a string of rapes, don't involuntarily take their DNA. I don't have a problem with this.

                When the police request the DNA, or they have a reason beyond "gosh, let's look and see what's in our files to clear", then I don't have a problem.

                Seems to me Cold Case Squads often do have success with DNA---obtained because they actually developed a suspect in the actual crime first. I realize it takes years---I know how the CSI Effect has turned the legal system into derp.

                (also the "what about if your sister/mother/aunt/relation was assaulted" argument doesn't work on me. Emotional arguments haven't worked on me since I was 3 years old. You may call me cold if you wish, if it makes you feel better about yourself.)

                relax relate release

                by terrypinder on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:03:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I feel fine about myself. New view of you, tho. (0+ / 0-)

                  *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                  by glorificus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:26:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  a view that's likely incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, bevenro

                    relax relate release

                    by terrypinder on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:36:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not like you care. (0+ / 0-)

                      *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                      by glorificus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:42:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fuzzyguy, bevenro

                        Again, if the police request the DNA (either voluntarily given or compelled via a warrant) I've got no problems. I said that.

                        If they have a compelling reason to do what they already do in other places after they've developed a suspect for an unsolved series of rape or unsolved murder (going through their trash for example since the trash is no longer yours when you put it out, at least in some states) again, absolutely no problems.

                        If someone breaks into a home and steals a TV--and then sexually assaults one or more of the people in the house--then there is a compelling reason to take their DNA. Then they go to trial, and if found guilty, they go to jail. This is great. This is how it should work.

                        But if someone breaks into a home and steals a TV and is arrested for said crime--and that's it---there's no compelling reason to take their DNA without a warrant--and Maryland law currently allows this (and yes, this exact very scenario--regardless of gender too). That's the problem I have. I think this is unreasonable. Adam does too. Even people who are arrested (and convicted!) still have some rights--even privacy-- (and admittedly, this is a tough concept for Americans to grasp. There's times even I don't like it.)

                        Now if you want to go up and down the thread and accuse people of being objectively pro-rape, which you have, by all means, do so. It's also objectively not true, for any of the people you've obliquely and explictly accused of this, in this thread.

                        I note JamesGG has made the argument that warrantless DNA grabs are reasonable far better than just screaming "j'accuse!" at people.

                        relax relate release

                        by terrypinder on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:43:01 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  asdf back (0+ / 0-)
                          But if someone breaks into a home and steals a TV and is arrested for said crime--and that's it---there's no compelling reason to take their DNA without a warrant--and Maryland law currently allows this (and yes, this exact very scenario--regardless of gender too).
                          I disagree with you and Adam B. I know Adam B's gender, and I'm guessing you are also male.

                          I do think the fact neither of you see rape as 'all that important' is a reflection of your gender and its attendant privileges in American society.

                          So your comment, "It's also objectively not true ... in this thread." means very little to me.

                          *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                          by glorificus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 12:26:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Either it's a search or it's not. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terrypinder, fuzzyguy

            We don't excuse a warrantless police search of your apartment just because they put everything back where it belonged.

            •  Why would fingerprinting not be a search then? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus

              They're taking some piece of personally-identifiable information from the arrestee, and seeing if it can be tied to other crimes.

              Neither fingerprinting nor swabbing the inner cheek for DNA are intrusive and neither has any long-term effect on the arrestee, and if proper protocols are set up, neither will give any further information about the arrestee except whether or not the same personally-identifiable information has been found at crime scenes in unsolved crimes.

              I'm just not seeing how running fingerprints through a database is reasonable, and running DNA through a database isn't. Seems to me that either both of them are reasonable, or both of them are unreasonable.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:12:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's not like they're lopping off a finger. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus

          I have seen no evidence that there is any kind of effect, either short-term or long-term, of swabbing the inside of someone's cheek for DNA.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:13:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If the cops have arrested someone they HAVE (0+ / 0-)

      probable cause, unless it's an illegal arrest which is NOT the question at hand.

      *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

      by glorificus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:25:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site