|
Quote of the Day - Equal Rights were created for everyone. - A contesant in 1990 Mr. New Jersey Male pageant
Mass DNA Sampling: Which Would You Choose?
You've likely never heard of Christa Worthington, and unfortunately, we're not going to hear from her, either. She was killed in Truro, Massachusetts on Cape Cod over three years ago.
The police have no leads. Her two-and-one-half-year-old daughter, now five, was found nearby.
Police have now resorted to mass DNA collecting to generate leads. The ACLU is none too happy about it, and sent a letter to the Truro police and prosecutors asking them to stop.
It's a Constitutional violation, the ACLU claims. The Lexis One article link above notes that mass DNA has solved crimes in Europe, but not in Louisiana, Virginia or Nebraska, where it has been tried without success.
Lexis One also quoted Cape Cod Prosecutor Michael O'Keefe, who said he did not intend to change tactics. "Our goal is to employ whatever methodology is available to us to solve a homicide," he said, adding that authorities understood some people would not participate "for a variety of legitimate reasons."
Is it open up to prove your innocence, or clam up and exercise your rights?
|
| |
Comments |
Comments by BigWombat from United States on Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 02:21
Asking for DNA samples is an excercise in futility. If you were the guilty party, I hardly suspect that you would freely give your DNA. On the other hand if you were innocent why bother taking time out of your life to prove something you already know? Additionally, I have to agree with the ACLU. Even if the collection process is purely voluntary, Police have a way of being very convincing when you are surrounded and outnumbered. The SEC has rules that prevent brokers from taking advantage of unsophisticated stock purchasers. The police have no such code to live by, and twisting someones arm to give a "voluntary" DNA sample may be a simple way to collect evidence.
|
| |
Comments by Daniel Strahan from United States on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 23:59
I got nothing to hide so big deal. Only the guilty of something need worry. The ACLU is just worried that they may be investigated and shut down as they should be.
|
| |
Comments by Craig Becker from United States on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 13:42
From a purely game-theoretic standpoint, I've never understood this kind of thing: I'm at zero and I can refuse to participate and stay at zero -- or I can participate and either a) stay at zero or b) immediately drop to -1,000,000 or so: even if I'm innocent, there's a small but non-zero chance of a false positive on the test. And I can assure you it'll be very expensive and traumatic to dig yourself out from under a false positive.
And aside from what Beanie and Chuck said -- are the police going to call people up and ask them to come on down and leave a sample? Like, I'm supposed to take time out of my busy schedule to stop by the police station, probably cool my heels until the test guy finds his cotton balls, and then get swabbed -- all just to prove my innocence (when I'm already supposedly 'innocent until proven guilty')? NFW.
|
| |
Comments by Beanie from United States on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 10:44
I think the most disturbing part of this is the fact that the department readily admitted earlier this week that those who didn't comply would be subject to even more suspicion. The whole thing makes my skin crawl.
|
| |
Comments by Chuck from United States on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 10:05
What makes anyone think that if your DNA is not a match, the authorities will throw it away? The problem with DNA is that it contains way more information than just who you are. For example, it holds information about future events: the likelihood of certain specific illnesses, your ability to transmit lethal recessive genes to offspring, and way, way more. No one has a right to this information without your permission. It boils down to a matter of trust. If they promise not to share or release this information, will you trust them? I won't! Remember...police in this country can lie to get the information they need. BUt...isn't your privacy protected by law? No. And anyway, the beauty of our legal system is that laws can and do change. They have no business being custodians of my most personal information as contained in my DNA.
|
| |
Comments by kent roberts from United States on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 00:51
If one is guilty, then it makes sense not to submit to a DNA test. If one is innocent, why not submit ?
|
| |
Comments by Paleojudge from United States on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 23:39
How are they collecting the samples? Apparently do you not have to participate if you don't want to. If is voluntary how does that violate anyone's rights? Well, if this ties down the local ACLU for awhile the community is probably better off.
|
| |
Comments are now closed.
Send your comments directly to the author at jcraigwms at wlf-law.com (remove spaces and add @ symbol in place of the "at").
|
