DNA Collection Does Not Violate Prisoners' Religious Freedom

[Cid_B]

In an unusual challenge to the Bureau of Prisons' practice of extracting DNA samples from convicted felons, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the process does not infringe federal prisoners' religious freedom (pdf).

Russell Kaemmerling, who was convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and is being held in a federal prison in Texas, sued to block the BOP from collecting his DNA on the grounds that it amounted to a defilement of "God's temple" and was "tantamount to laying the foundation for the rise of the anti-Christ."

By law, the BOP is required to collect DNA samples from prisoners, typically via a blood sample or a mouth swab to collect saliva. The Justice Department recently expanded its DNA collection to include citizens arrested in connection with federal crimes and many immigrants detained by federal authorities.

Kaemmerling, an evangelical Christian, argued that collection of his DNA information could result in his unwilling participation in activities against his religion, including cloning experiments and stem cell research.
...

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427145452

______________________________________________

I wonder if this guy really believes this or is just trying to hold up any process that could identify future crimes?

[Ian David]

1. I think it would be funny to put a mask on someone to make him think he's been cloned.

Or if some of the other prisoners would prank him by occasionally saying things like, "How did you get here so fast? Wasn't I just talking to you like one minute ago out in the yard?"

[Cid_B]

2. Ha!

Do you have a twin or something? Crime must run in the family.. Gee thats weird.

[pipi_k]

5. wahahahahahha

I'm just way too sick for my own good..

I think that's hilarious

:7

[Vickers]

3. "convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud"

How religious of him.

:eyes:

[4dsc]

4. Big brother is here...

This is pure bullshit IMHO.. They shouldn't be allowed to take you DNA period..

[Cid_B]

6. What is IYHO the difference between fingerprints and this then?

nt?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Yes, and no.

For a criminal convicted of certain offenses it is an investigative tool that can be crucial, and is no more intrusive than fingerprinting. OTOH, I don't see the relevance for DNA tracking of someone convicted of wire fraud - it is not a crime where DNA evidence is ever going to be a factor.

For a number of violent crimes - rape and assault, primarily - DNA is important and those convicted of those crimes have no expectation of privacy. The government has no business collecting DNA data on grifters and dopers who have no history of violence.

[Ian David]

8. I hadn't thought of it that way. I think you may be right.

I wonder what they need to keep on file for THIS guy...

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Police_apprehend_suspected_butt_bandit&in_article_id=415781&in_page_id=2

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. THAT is funny.

I've lived in Nebraska. Not a lot to do there. You know what they say about idle hands - I guess it could apply to other parts of the anatomy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. You could make the same argument about fingerprints.

Why take the fingerprints of somebody convicted of wire fraud?