E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Today's arrest in the "Grim Sleeper" serial-killing case demonstrates how the sins of the father can be found out through a son's DNA - and why the technique can be controversial.
A 57-year-old one-time LAPD garage attendant named Lonnie Franklin Jr. was arrested in Los Angeles in connection with the string of 10 murders, committed between 1985 and 2007. The killer was nicknamed the "Grim Sleeper" because there was a 14-year break within that string, from 1988 to 2002.
The case puts an unorthodox forensic tool known as familial DNA analysis at center stage. The method is specifically allowed only in two states - California and Colorado - and it's specifically banned in Maryland. New York is OK with using the method, but only if it's an "inadvertent" side effect of a more rigorous data search. The FBI currently has no firm policy on familial DNA matching but is willing to let states share their DNA data for use in the procedure.
Now that familial DNA analysis has come up with a high-profile match, you'll probably be hearing much more about whether it should be used more widely.
Not-quite-perfect match
Why is the technique so controversial? It's because investigators look for not-quite-perfect matches between the DNA left behind at a crime scene and DNA markers taken from a wide sampling of people who may or may not have committed a crime themselves. The goal isn't necessarily to find the suspects, but rather the potential relatives of suspects. If there's a close match, investigators could focus their search on close relatives of the person who matched up - in hopes that the trail will lead to suspects who haven't left a DNA trail themselves.
It's basically a crime-lab variant of the tests widely used to trace your genealogy, but these would be relatives you might not want to feature on your family tree.
Familial DNA searches have been done in Britain for years, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown gave investigators the go-ahead to do the same in the Grim Sleeper case two years ago. A database search came up with a partial but significant match between DNA collected during the investigation and a routine sample taken from Franklin's son. Brown said the son was given a cheek swab after his conviction on a felony weapons charge. LA Weekly reported that the results of the DNA analysis "lit up like a Christmas tree."
The investigators followed up by snagging DNA samples from Franklin himself. A relative of one of the Grim Sleeper victims who was briefed by police said that the sample was left on a restaurant cup, while the Los Angeles Times reported that the DNA was recovered from a discarded piece of pizza. The most likely scenario is that forensic sleuths tested the pizza, the cup and any other items that Franklin might have put to his lips while dining.
District Attorney Steve Cooley told the Times that the arrest "shows the legitimacy" of using partial DNA matches and promised to provide more details at a Thursday news conference.
If the arrest leads to a conviction, the feat will take forensic genetics to a whole new level. But it could raise a whole new crop of questions about genetic privacy as well.
Lifetime genetic surveillance?
In California, for example, the DNA samples are collected after every felony arrest, and may be retained even if the suspect later goes free. That has sparked a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU noted that about a third of all those arrested for felonies in California are not convicted of any crime, and said that "thousands of innocent Californians will be subject to a lifetime of genetic surveillance because a single police officer suspected them of a crime."
The ACLU also said the system could have a "huge racial impact" because a disproportionate number of people of color are already represented in California's criminal justice system, which serves as the main channel for the state's DNA sampling flow (at a rate of roughly 25,000 samples per month). The latest figures show that California has the biggest statewide DNA database in the country, with more than 1.5 million samples. ACLU calls it the third-biggest forensic DNA database in the world, behind the FBI's nationwide CODIS system (which includes the California samples) and Britain's national data bank.
We're right in the midst of a massive crime-lab experiment in DNA collection. The federal government and all 50 states require those convicted of felonies to provide DNA samples, but California is just one of the 23 states that require DNA for felony arrests. Congress and several states, including New York and North Carolina, are currently talking about widening their DNA collection programs to cover arrests as well as convictions.
Proponents of wider DNA testing say that such measures will prevent crime, save lives and provide more protection to the innocent. Opponents say that such measures will put more of a burden on the innocent, and that familial DNA analysis could turn even distant relatives into "genetic informants." I say that the Grim Sleeper case will increase the pressure on lawmakers to bulk up DNA databases across the country, and will lead to wider use of familial DNA as well. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? What do you say? Weigh in on this issue by leaving a comment below.
More on genetic sleuthing:
- Who's keeping your genetic keys?
- Interactive: Your genetic fingerprints
- DNA collection raises ethical questions
- Gaps in DNA databanks lead to tragedy
- DNA pioneer wants cuts to criminal database
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I understand that they (THE CRIMINALS) would be in a database forever and "subject to a lifetime of genetic surveillance" but who cares?This makes it sound like the government will be subjecting them to some sort of painful process. Just because the Government knows your social security number doesn't mean they will use it to open a credit card with the Home Depot. Look if you are not paying your taxes then you SHOULD be subject to "surveillance" because you're a CRIMINAL. All I am saying is that if you are a law abiding citizen what does this matter? Swab me for all I care and while your at it I need some surveillance cameras because my neighborhood can be a little shady... Come on get to it FBI ! :)
I'm mostly on your side, but I do want to re-emphasize an important point in this debate: Right now, it's the settled law of the land that convicted felons can be subject to DNA testing and will thus be under "genetic surveillance" for the rest of their lives. The issue has to do with those who are arrested but not convicted. Should those samples from innocent people be retained indefinitely? There are provisions in California through which a person can have his or her DNA sample wiped out after a statute of limitations has run out (at least three years), but the ACLU says the process is cumbersome. Suppose you were arrested just because you happened to be milling around the site of a protest march, and you were forced to give a DNA sample that will sit permanently in the police files. If it were me, I probably wouldn't care so much. But some people might see that as unreasonable search and seizure. The point is that mandatory DNA testing is not just for criminals anymore.
Isaac - great post,and plenty on mark.If you are honest, as I am, you have nothing to fear
Hey Alan,
Doesn't the same issue apply to fingerprinting though? Whether you actually commit a crime or not, once the police obtain your fingerprints (or as part of any official application process such as the military), those are also permanently on file for the rest of your life. Why should DNA testing be different?
Alan, et al,
I have to agree with the majority of the responders, the "innocent" have nothing to be concerned about. Their DNA will never be an issue because they will not commit a crime. If they do, it's a law-enforcement shortcut and tool that should not be overlooked.
Frankly, I would take it a step further and allow DNA sampling during the investigation process. If you are brought in for questioning, even if you are not detained, you should be required to give a DNA sample. Currently, that is not the case here in Oklahoma.
Look, I have worked in law enforcement, been a private investigator, an armed security officer, an executive protection specialist for state officials, and am currently an investigator for a state agency, as well as having a concealed carry permit. Everyone of those applications/certifications require my fingerprints be taken. There are so many copies of my finger-prints floating around in various databases it is truly the definition of redundant. But I am not concerned about it. I am a law abiding citizen and it is not an issue. I feel the same way about DNA samples. If you are a law abiding citizen then you have nothing to worry about, if not, then I'm glad we've got a sample of your DNA.
PEACE
so the fact that the government is breaking the law by even collecting taxes doesn't matter? the federal government when set up by our forefathers was banned from ever collecting taxes as all of that funding should be controlled by the STATES. this whole country is falling apart and when no one has any privacy left maybe everyone will realize they should have protested when they had a chance.
Right on!!!!!
That's a good point about retention of fingerprint records. Here's a study that delves into the topic in depth. Most states allow "civil fingerprints" (e.g., submitted for background checks) to be retained for criminal investigation purposes. There are some exceptions (Idaho, for instance, which requires destruction of civil fingerprint records).
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/225204.pdf
@Eric - How do you figure when the US Constitution specifically states that the government has exactly that right? Article I, Section 8... The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Also, what does collecting taxes have to do with DNA sampling or fingerprinting?
Elentir - In case you didn't notice: Eric is incoherent and an idiot. Please do not criticize him in the future. Some people like to rant, but lack common sense to rant properly.
This can only be a good thing, especially if you have nothing to hide. Another thing to consider is that the Grim Sleeper might never have been arrested without the use of familial DNA.
Am I the only one who hates the "nothing to hide" argument? Our criminal justice system is based on a number of principles, but one of the most important is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, law enforcement can not simply decide you are guilty and then do whatever they want with you. They have to follow the law themselves.
They can't just enter your home and search your stuff, they have to get a warrant first. Etc. The "nothing to hide" argument seems to suggest that law enforcement shouldn't have to deal with these laws. After all, why shouldn't they be able to just search your house...if you've got nothing to hide then you won't get in trouble.
But the fact of the matter is, I think it's important that the government have to abide by laws themselves. It's one of the foundations of our entire society--the government must respect our rights and must not be above the law themselves.
It's easy to say that just letting them do whatever they want might make us more secure, but one should never forget the famous quote "Who watches the watchmen?". If we allow anyone complete power to stop crime no matter the methods, then we are opening a dangerous door that there is no way to close. There's another famous, and probably overly quoted, line that I like "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". Benjamen Franklin said that.
By the way I'm not necessarily saying that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use this method of DNA tracking. My beef is with justifying it with the "nothing to hide argument".
These are the foundations of our very society and it scares me to think that we may be starting to head in a direction where they don't matter to us. A direction where people ARE willing to sacrifice freedom for security simply because they feel they have nothing to hide.
I like this trend. It will contribute in some measure to weeding-out the sources of inferior genes in the population at large. Jailed people seldom produce offspring. But when they do, are not the children of criminals too often criminals themselves? Hence the genetic profiling of all felons must inevitably lead to the identification of still more felons. We need to put more emphasis on the advancement of the human species. Some factors do it for us, such as AIDS for example which by its nature tends to target the less intelligent and the more perverse. Also the effects of genetic anomalies themselves often limit lifespans and reproduction. But if we're to accelerate the process and thereby improve the human condition as we rightfully should, we must routinely use genetics as a tool to curtail the lives and enterprise of those we can identify as flawed; the criminals, the criminally insane, the nonconformists (are they not always somewhat athwart the law?), and eventually even the religionists. I see positive developments here. In due time the aggregate human condition cannot help but be materially improved. After all... the betterment of mankind can obviously only truly be achieved by the literal betterment of mankind.
This is a philosophy that Hitler would have loved
well james that would be great except for that most crime is bred through basic human desires like greed and lust and etc. as well as crime can also be a factor of previous surroundings socially and and in the family life.if a man in california is a criminal but his relative elsewhere is a perfect citizen dosent that put an end to your theory. more than likley if the criminal raises his kid he will be a criminal as well. However i think one way to better our species is to kill the dangerous criminals as i believe in an eye for an eye same goes with pedophiles and rapists as most victims tend to have mental health problems and are therefore counter productive to society
Sir I hope that you are not serious as your statement is one of pure eugenics at its worst. This is exactly the sort of sentiment that leads to genocide, the kind of genocide that involves gas chambers and ovens to weed out the genetically inferior. I way to improve the human condition is to preserve the liberty of human individuals to make crucial life decisions despite the efforts of technocrats who seek to use misuse science to seize the power to control the lives of others.
Going to take a shot at this. Most of the philosophy you espouse is based on a very cursory understanding of the science. The concept of genetic "inferiority" has no meaning outside a context of a specific environment. Take one of the examples you cite, that of criminals. Many who are criminals in our relatively peaceful culture will be war heroes in another. The same can apply to the "perverse." You will find it interesting to note that many prostitutes in Africa carry a natural immunity to AIDS. This "perversity" would actually imply superiority, using your logic. Whereas you personally might be vulnerable to AIDS if you were exposed to it by a blood splatter, or other means, these prostitutes are your superiors.
It is therefore impossible to "better" mankind without knowing what specific environment you are bettering us for. And every environment you better us for, you will confer disadvantages for another. Take the extreme example of the dinosaurs. In an environment that included a very large meteor, their better genes was a great disadvantage - the lowly mammals survived.
Byron - Excellent logic. While there might be grains of truth to the eugenics theory, many random uncontrollable factors will usually effect the outcome.
First of all, this is going to be one for the record books, (literally and figuratively) and in so many fields.
Before he's even found guilty or innocent, there are going to be so many questions that need to be answered. For me , the first aspects that come into play is:
1) We're talking about the LAPD here. They haven't had much of a good track record, so I hope they have all their ducks in a row. And considering that familial DNA is so controversial and the way that it was obtained... (nobody needs to jump down my throat because of what they think I might be implying. I'm just beginning to look at it from both sides. So I'm thinking out loud here. If that's a crime...)
2) The fact that he's never been arrested for anything...well Ted Bundy may have never been arrested before he was caught ...they say that there are around 50 serial killers working the states at any given time.
3) I would be interested in what the criminal psychologists and FBI profilers might find out about him. I know one thing right off the bat that as far as statistics go, serial killers are USUALLY white males. But serial killers usually stay within their racial group. And if the grim sleeper was killing prostitutes, he may have had a strict upbringing. I'll be interested in what the experts have to say. But they've been proven wrong before.
4) There are people who have been in prison for murder and they've been found innocent by DNA surfacing from looking at old cases again. And of course there have been murderers who have walked...that's why I brought up the LAPD. You know that with the familial DNA coming into play, it's going to bring up the question of whether or not it can be used in other cases that have already been before the Courts.
5) What do the rest of the states do? This case is going to set a precedent either way. What will the Supreme Court do? I'm a big believer in the ACLU. If it weren't for them... we never know when we might need them.
6) How will this change our legal system compared to other countries? I'm sure they will be interested too.
P.S.
I forgot a few things. What was he doing in between those yrs.? What stopped him form continuing to kill? Psychopaths usually don't have a conscious, so I doubt if he stopped for that reason.
A lot of people wouldn't have a problem with having their DNA hanging around in data bases forever. But at what point do you draw the line? Are we going be racially profiled on top of that?
And what in the hell are "inferior" genes? People don't turn in to criminals just because one of their parents were. Upbringing sometimes comes into play, but even for those who've had an extremely bad childhood doesn't necessarily make for a criminal, or even a serial killer. Look at Jeffrey Daumier's case. His parents are said to be about as normal as you can get. Genes aren't the cause of crime.
"AIDS tends to target the less intelligent and more perverse."? You have got to be kidding me!
I don't see mankind progressing with such ignorant thinking like that!
Hopefully he IS the grim sleeper and that's one we won't have to worry about. But you just never know.
Darrah,
Those are all excellent points and worth considering, but I have to admit your "PS" really caught my attention because that was the first thing I thought of when they said there had been a 14 year gap.
Wasn't there a gap in the ZODIAC killings? I don't remember, too much water under the bridge.
No one is ever going to confuse me for a right-wing, conservative, bullet-headed anglo-saxon mother's son despite my profession(s) and the fact that I carry a firearm. But I think DNA collection and a DNA database is a good thing.
Now, as for Jimmy (see above) boy do I hope we have HIS DNA in some database somewhere.
PEACE
After googling this case, I found out that he was in jail before, and not just once. (that info is on the second page.)
So why did they have to resort to familial DNA? Wasn't his DNA suppose to be in the data bank?
Seems to me that DNA techniques would be a big help to those who fear racial profiling. Wouldn't it tend to clear many more innocent suspects than theshelp convict guilty ones? Also, with all the fiscal pressure on government services, such as police, e days, I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on finding/convicting the criminals rather than wasting time building a case against the innocent. The earlier a DNA check can clear a suspect, the better.
In the end, of course ... don't commit crimes and you'll also be helping make your neighborhood safer, too.
Why is ACLU so big on protecting the criminals? I and most other law abiding Americans have not problem with giving a DNA sample. If I or a family member ever commit a crime they need to be punished and rehabilitated if possible. Let the "DNA Bank" do all it can to protect us from those who wish us harm.
The ACLU needs to change their name in my opinion. There name should be CCLU or "Criminals Civil Liberty Union". They really are mainly protecting the guilty in this day and age. There are enough laws on the books to protect the Innocent as it stands. The ACLU is obsolete and they know it. They now only have the very, very guilty to focus on. Getting a "Guilty" person back into society to pra on the "Innocent" once again is now there main objective.
giving a DNA sample for one test is one thing but i would never give my DNA for some lab to "Create" evidence against me at some future date. im a law abiding citizen but the government both state and federal will stop at nothing to convict you even if you are innocent
Eric, I think you and OJ Simpson are in agreement.
The stated purpose of the ACLU is to protect the due process of law. This is what protects you and and protects me from cops in a bad mood, judges with an axe to grind and every other fallible human being in a position of power.
It is obvious that the ACLU has no reason to focus on the clearly innocent. What purpose would be served? What you have failed to realize, though, is that the ACLU also doesn't focus on criminals. They focus on those who are accused of a crime. What they will then do is make sure that due process is observed, so that those who are accused can be protected from those who would pass summary judgment without bothering to examine all of the evidence.
This is crazy, our government and society are based on the concept of inalienable rights...in other words rights that can't be taken away. They're supposed to be something we're born with and something we keep until our dying day. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was intended to ensure that the government never try to take away those rights.
The government--law enforcement certainly included--must themselves follow the law as laid down in the constitution and as laid down through the history of our country by congress and the judicial system. How can you trust law enforcement that doesn't follow the law? You can't. People make mistakes. The police and government are no exception, but the power they wield means that their mistakes can cause great harm.
ACLU is about protecting everyone--guilty and innocent alike-- from a government that might not always want to follow the law.
What about the rights of the murderer's victims? How can you stupid barstids come up with a more bone-headed argument against a murder investigation? Don't get me started on your incredible stupidity!
ugh
I thought I had a constitutional right to not incriminate myself. What could be more "me" than my dna? We already sniff each others urine like dogs in pre-employment drug screening. The dna databases are used for crime now, but what about in the future? California is broke, how much is a dna database worth? The only thing keeping the government from mis-using the database is the law, a law the government can change anytime they want. This is enough to keep me from ever stepping foot in California or 22 other states ever again. DNA is only as fool-proof as the lab or expert that analyzes it. Med labs make mistakes all the time. If a good hospitals lab can make a mistake that kills someone, do you think some government crime lab won't? A dna test isn't like other evidence. A jury cannot look at a test and tell if it was done right or even what the results are. This whole thing stinks. What people are willing to put up with or even think is a good idea is starting to give me the creeps. I'm actually starting to feel like one of those wierdos who go live in a cabin with no electricity. The goverment wants all of our dna, but they know we won't stand for that yet, so they'll just go after the criminals for now. Well guess what, every single one of us is a criminal to some extent. Where do they draw the line? They know it doesn't matter, once the line is drawn they can move it around as they see fit until we are all on the wrong side of it.
stobobros... you are so correct. Unless they can show us a fool-proof way (in other words human proof) to make sure these tests are correct and done correctly, no one is safe. That is exactly why DNA testing is used as a last resort. It is never never ever 100%.
As much as I rejoice when criminals are caught, I can't agree with: "if you don't have anything to hide why are you scared of DNA records?"
Innocent people have been convicted and jailed because the cards are stacked against them in many ways.
False, accusations, sometimes frighteningly convincing to authorities, are weapons used by criminal minds.
Otherwise I'd agree to give my DNA sample worldwide.
I agree with the majority here, and that is, what do we have to hide, maybe a serial killing spree or some other nasty way of leaving DNA samples. I have yet to see any argument in favor of hiding DNA evidence that makes any sense, so come on, swab away, and I will get in line first.
No this is great! It's going to be like 1000 times easier for a criminal to frame someone else! All you have to do is get anything with someone's DNA on it, leave it at the crimescene, and hope someone in their family is in the database! Woo Hoo! Oh by the way I'm kidding. The "we don't have anything to hide" people are ridiculous because they think there will be absolutely no corruption. Seems like these people are the first in line to get fluids sucked out of every orifice without asking questions. It's not the American spirit anyway. Go move to Great Britain.
I'm afraid you watch too much television.
1) The suspect has been arrested, but remember, he is presumed "not guilty" until a jury hears and sees sufficient evidence that they decide proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A high percentage match between a family member's DNA and that of the suspect is not sufficient evidence, but it is very useful in eliminating lots of people from the list of possible suspects.
2) I used to work in a laboratory for law enforcement just as DNA technology was taking hold. I don't know about now, but 17 years ago we weren't required to provide a DNA sample upon employment. However a background check was conducted in advance of the job offer and I was fingerprinted my first day at work and am, therefore, likely subjected to "fingerprint surveillance" for the rest of my life. I am not aware of when my prints are examined (probably hundreds of times a day) and I won't have a clue until I am contacted because something matched. If something does match, I'll have a talk with the investigators. That one bit of information is nowhere near sufficient to get a conviction on any charge and there are other facts and pieces of information to consider before taking things to trial. The same will be true of any collected DNA samples or partial matches suggestive of a familial connection.
3) The DNA profiles will, more often than not, provide exoneration for those whose samples are examined. I'm all for that. Regarding the "annoyance" of lifelong "genetic surveillance", I do not believe people will be contacted each and every time a CODIS search examines their record. Law enforcement agencies simply do not have the budget nor personnel available to let everyone know each time their DNA samples was compared to that found on some evidence. Forensic DNA profiles DO NOT test for data on genetic diseases or conditions. Think about how long it takes and how much it costs to get results from lab tests at the doctor's office. Law enforcement agencies do not have the time, money or personnel available to do that kind of extra testing, nor is it in their mandate.
4) In my opinion, there's not much difference between being photographed and fingerprinted upon arrest and having a DNA sample collected and profiled, especially now that the DNA is collected with a cheek swab as opposed to a blood sample. The rule for retention of the DNA information should be the same as for the other routinely collected information.
5) A lot of people think the police are way more clever and power hungry than they really are. Yes, there are some bad apples out there, but most aren't. If you are contacted by the cops, pulled over, whatever, cooperate and don't give them further reason to harass you. Talking back with an attitude, being defensive and obstinate gives cops plenty of reasons to spend more time with you trying to figure out why you are talking back with an attitude, being defensive and obstinate.
6) Providing a DNA sample is NOT the same as providing 24/7 streaming video of your bedroom (though it seems some people do that for fun these days...).
the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a misconception by most americans. true it is woorded like that in the constitution and has very good principals. but in reality it is "guilty until proven innocent"
"Lifetime genetic surveillance?"
What is everyone at the ACLU worried about?!? If you've got nothing to hide, ie-you haven't committed a crime, then you have nothing to worry about!! And if you HAVE commotted a crime then you DESERVE prosecution to the fullest extent of the law!! We are a country of laws!!
As the old saying goes....Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!
What % of the citizens of this country trust law enforcement? My opinion is that it is the majority. Their duty is to seek and find criminal behavior. Such action hopefully leads to deterring future crime. Let's help them. After every child's footprint is taken at birth in hospitals throughout the nation, their DNA should also be collected and put it in a national database. Access to the database will be restricted and periodically reviewed to avoid abuse. We should also require that anyone entering this country with a passport also provide a sample for DNA testing. The only people who will be opposed to this process are present and future criminals. Does anyone care what they think?
Kid gets put up for adoption in California. Kid's new adopted parents accept job on the East Coast. New York allows DNA collection upon arrest of a felony. Kid is out partying with friends at 16 yrs old. Kid's friends are smoking dope, kid gets busted with them. Kid's DNA is collected. Charges are dropped against the kid, but DNA remains on file. 30 years later, kids birth father is committing murders in NY. Familial DNA is used to track the kid down (now 46 years old with a family of his own.) Kid has never met his birth father and cannot help.
Does this not suggest a huge waste in time and effort on the police departments part? Not to mention a huge violation of the kid's personal rights considering all charges were dropped on the crime he was accused of at 16? Not to mention, what if the kid was never told he was adopted? What if as far as he knew his adopted parents were the only family he had? Do you turn his world upside down now (not to mention that of his parents, wife and children) just because he happens to share DNA with a murderer? I think not.
While this probably isn't very likely statistically, it is a possible scenario and should be considered.
They have to be arrested for a felony and felony possession of marijuana is a pretty fat bag of dope. It would not be asmall personal use amount
I think the government should open up the DNA sampling to all Americans, my guess is that the vast majority would volunteer, I know I would. The ALCU was equally against GPS tracking for cell phones for many of the same reasons, today most all of us enjoy GPS and the tracking options provided for many good reasons.
I guess my point is that freedom is great but in modern society it does come with responsibility and so we may need to give a little to get a little.
I think the ALCU and the NRA have become borderline radical organizations that no longer represent the majority of American's towards their causes. These like a few other organizations I can think of have a seeming inability to find middle ground on any cause.......
I have no problem with any of this. If you get arrested (whether charged or not), odds are you were doing something wrong in the first place. If you are innocent and you never commit a crime, then your DNA won't be matched to anything. If you are an innocent family member of someone who committed a crime, then, again, your DNA will not match the evidence. So, if you have nothing to hide, then none of this should be a problem for you.
Additionally, DNA matching software is incapable of racial profiling.....
How deja vu can you get. i am more than willing to bet that the same people who are thinking
"If you've got nothing to hide, ie-you haven't committed a crime, then you have nothing to worry about!!"
Are the same ones that said something very similiar when it came to allowing racial profiling after 911. There are always those willing to surrender their liberties for the false promise of more safety.
Pretty sure someone important said "Those willing to give up their freedom for security deserve neither!"
Science has given us a marvelous tool for gaining a one-up on people who's primary goal in life is to have their identity concealed after doing harm to another human being. Is the collateral damage from the use of this tool too high? I'm certain it's quality will be refined and improved with more extensive use. If my DNA can be used to help catch and/or stop a criminal then I'm all for it!
I've thought about the possiblity of DNA being collected at birth. We all have social security numbers (if american citizen), why not DNA? The government has issued my social security number and I have no problem with them having my genetic markers as well. I'm identified in america with a SSN and DNA is a form of identification. If me or any family member or friend go missing and a body is later found dead, I want to be identified or be able to identify my child. If someone hurts one of my children and leaves DNA, I want them held accountable for their actions and possibly stopped from hurting more people.
My imagination runs wild when I think about where technology might be in another 100 years..... DNA might be an everyday way to prove who we are. Identity fraud would be no longer.... crimes would either be lower or criminals would be smarter...... just a thought.
About the DNA familial, the government or FBI researching a crime would possibly be able to tell if someone was adopted and might not necessarily have to contact that person. However, that leads to a whole different topic..... every human being has the right to know where their blood comes from. However, I have debated that topic in my own mind and have not come to a committed opinion on it.....
I sat and read so many comments about our criminal justice system and the use of dna in murder cases. But here is another thought. Large insurance companies could use your own dna against you. Is your ancestry prone to breast cancer or some other form of cancer? How about sickle cell? Have you checked to see whether you have family members that are prone to some mental disease, such as bi-polar illness? I am not so much worried about the criminal aspects of how your dna can be used against you, but what about other uses of dna? I'm afraid I have to agree somewhat with Tea Party Lobotomy. Hitler would have loved this. And believe me, as a screaming, bleeding-heart liberal, I am not against government. I am well aware what social programs my taxes pay for. There are several familial dna cases which are presently playing out at various levels in our justice system. I am interested in what will be decided, aren't you?
Another great point! Sooner rather than later this collection of "data" will be used against us ALL for gain, either monetary or other. Those who are cosigning wholeheartedly now will be crying foul and cursing their shortsightedness for not conceiving the myriad ways this database will be mined and utilized.
Let' not confuse "innocent" with "not guilty." If arrested and not charged, or charged and found "not guilty" that is significantly different then being "innocent." In either case as stated, it does not mean you did NOT commit the offense. "innocent" means you did NOT do it, "not guilty" means the governmental body responsible for your prosecution was unable to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense - it in no way means you did NOT do it.......
So, Fred, everyone who is found "not guilty" really did commit the crime and got away with it?
If it were only a matter of using the technique to catch the perps of horrendous crimes, such as mass murderers, that would certainly be the end justifying the means....but you know that sooner or later, a DNA data base will affect all of us in ways that we can't even imagine now. Please, please remember that when you so readily give up the rights of others, you are ultimately giving up your own rights.
I absolutely agree!
Additionally, has anyone realized that under HIPPA Law, you do not have the right to view your own medical records? Your doctor, insurance company, government, employers who conduct your drug tests all have the right to view your records...BUT YOU DON'T! And what else falls under this precedent? DNA!
I understand how important DNA is, but this is pushing it. I'm for if you have a Felony CONVICTION. then yes your in the DNA Data bank Forever. You have been granted due process by the law. The only part I can't agree with is when someone's DNA is forever in the system for a FELONY ARREST. Everyday people are arrested, and later released for things they had nothing to do with. This is especially true for people of color, I should know I am one of them. And it would be naive to say that racial profiling does not exist, because we all no that it does. My husband is a Black CHP officer, and I can't count the number of times he has been stopped for no other reason then he is a black man driving a nice car. What ever happened to*** Innocent... until proven Guilty ???