Skip to main content

View Diary: Bloomberg Wants DNA Taken from All NYC Arrestees (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sicko (10+ / 0-)

    This guy's aspirations need to be stopped dead in their tracks.

    Obama, save me from your followers.

    by bink on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM PST

    •  This Is Not About People Convicted of a Crime (10+ / 0-)

      Even if you are just arrested, Bloomberg wants your DNA.  How many false arrests?  How many dragnet sweeps?  How many politically-motivated arrests (like we saw at the GOP convention) will this include?

      Obama, save me from your followers.

      by bink on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't arrestees get fingerprinted ... (0+ / 0-)

        before they are convicted?  I believe they do get fingerprinted. And then police may run their fingerprints through databases to see if anything matches.

        Thus, I think you need to make a case of why fingerprinting is ok, but a DNA swab is not ok.

        Is your criticism center on (a) too broad a range of arrests for crimes, ie non-felonies, would permit DNA testing or (b) is there something about DNA testing in particular.

        •  That's different (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          milton333

          This issue was explored in some other discussions held on the matter of the Homeland Security people wanting a national DNA database.

          In brief, fingerprints are not easy to check because they do not lend themselves to ready digital analysis.  Matching two prints still remains a bit of an art. This is important, because fingerprint matching usually means that the police are actively investigating a person or a crime, have reason to suspect a person or have fingerprints they are trying to match, and the evidence arises as part of a particular investigation.

          With DNA, it's different. That data can be digitally encoded, and a database scanned for matches quickly and easily. This allows for much easier fishing expeditions. An agency could decide to just "run the list" every now and then and see what pops up. With DNA trawling, you start using the technology to hunt for connections, associations, just seeing if anything shakes out.

          We ought not to allow a regime like that to be established. Easier to fight it now than after it is up and running.

          Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

          by The Raven on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:22:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have mixed feelings on this (0+ / 0-)

            On one hand, I'm not a big fan of government intrusion. On the other, though, I think if DNA is going to be a standard for criminal cases, it has the potential to show both guilt or innocence, and we have to accept it as such.

            We're using DNA successfully to get innocent people out of prison. It also can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a civil society, there is some utility in that prospect.

            For instance, check out this story from just today: Man pleads guilty to 20-year-old crime This was a brutal rape and murder of an 11-year-old that went unsolved for 20 years, until a DNA match emerged with this guy who raped a girl and then dropped a sink on her head.

            The Republican Party: Reinventing government, the same way they reinvented New Orleans

            by QuestionableSanity on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no "other hand" (0+ / 0-)

              You are just reiterating my argument (for which I thank you). That is, when you talk about DNA exoneration or use in a prosecution, you are talking about an active case. What we want in DNA evidence is this chain of events:

              1. Investigation
              1. DNA examination

              The Bloomberg scheme threatens to invert that list.

              Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

              by The Raven on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:49:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (0+ / 0-)

            sponsored by Mr Biden, and signed by Bush in January 2006, permits DNA collection for all arrests on federal charges, as I understand the law.

            The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering that will include hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, by far the largest group affected.

            The new forensic DNA sampling was authorized by Congress in a little-noticed amendment to a January 2006 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections and assistance for victims of sexual crimes. The amendment permits DNA collecting from anyone under criminal arrest by federal authorities, and also from illegal immigrants detained by federal agents.

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

        •  Different. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          milton333, reflectionsv37

          In theory, the fingerprints of those arrested are destroyed when the arrest doesn't pan out (tho' I've never been quite convinced they don't keep them somewhere) but Bloomberg's proposal is with the express purpose of creating a database of DNA samples.

      •  Mika on 'Morning Joe' says he's In (0+ / 0-)

        the Race.
         Great! Fanfrickin tastic. Not.

    •  Thanks for letting us know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bink, highacidity, Sanuk

      It's useful to have this kind of info., since he will be sold, if he runs, as a moderate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site