Do you support mandatory DNA collection upon arrest of anyone for anything?

[PM Martin]

Poll question: Do you support mandatory DNA collection upon arrest of anyone for anything?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/feds-to-collect/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest/comment-page-1/#comments

[PM Martin]

1. kick

[leftstreet]

2. Yes, it would create a lot of jobs. We can all swab the shit out of each other

$20.00 an hour

I'm down with it!

:beer:

[customerserviceguy]

3. Your question has some vague wording

It could be taken to mean either of the following: "Are there things that you would support mandatory DNA collection for upon arrest?" or "If someone is arrested for anything, no matter how small, do you feel that there should still be mandatory DNA collection?"

See where I'm coming with this? I'm all for DNA collection in the cases of murder and rape, but not so much for littering.

[Lyric]

7. I'm for DNA collection in the cases of murder and rape CONVICTIONS.

Not arrests.

[customerserviceguy]

19. What if the DNA collection

tied the alleged perpetrator to other such murders and rapes? If DNA is collected at crime scenes, and can then be matched against the DNA of those who sufficient cause arises for an arrest on a similar crime, wouldn't it be prudent to do some matching?

[WinkyDink]

30. WWLBD?

What Would Lennie Briscoe Do?

[Chemisse]

4. I think I could support it for those who have been CONVICTED

Of serious crimes, such as murder, rape, etc. People lose a lot of rights when they commit a horrible crime. The right to keep their DNA private should be one of them, particularly since it can help solve similar crimes in the future if these people are released and reoffend.

Of course those who have been arrested may need to provide DNA samples, in the same way a driver who has been arrested may have to allow a blood alcohol to be taken. But the DNA should be destroyed afterward, not kept in a DNA bank, unless they are convicted of at least a felony.

[NYC_SKP]

5. You beat me to it.

Even for convictions, I'd limit it to very serious crimes, not every conviction for every offense, as you suggest.

But for all arrests, hell no!

:mad:

[PM Martin]

6. I am talking about all arrests, including minor offenses.

Did you see that Obama supports this collection for minor offenses?
:wtf:

[NYC_SKP]

10. Public comments were being solicited by the Feds up until May 19th. Damn.

I wish I'd known sooner.

:mad:

[Lyric]

8. No--only for convictions, and even then, only for violent crimes.

Of course, I also oppose keeping fingerprints on file for every single person who's ever been arrested. I was arrested once on frivolous, false charges that were completely dropped by the judge I appeared before, and yet, my fingerprints and photograph are still on file forever. I didn't do anything wrong. I never even had a trial, much less a conviction--the whole thing was dropped as a mistake as soon as the judge heard the details of what happened. And yet--my information is right there, forever, like I'm some kind of criminal. I find that to be a serious violation of my privacy.

[PM Martin]

9. Can you get your record expunged.

[Lyric]

11. No idea. Not even sure what that means, to be honest.

[Gormy Cuss]

26. Expungement would render the information invisible.

I believe the fingerprints would stay but all info related to the arrest would be "destroyed," or more likely marked as expunged and therefore not to be divulged outside of the agency where the action occurred. It's a common way that people with money clean up the untidy little indiscretions of themselves and their progeny.

[Historic NY]

12. It closed a cold case homicide here with a Felony DWI arrest & conviction here

in the NY county I live in.

[PM Martin]

13. If an anti-war protester is arrested

should they have to give a DNA sample?

[tkmorris]

16. There is no question that such policies help catch criminals

However I (and apparently most others here) do not think it is worth the sacrifice of civil liberties. The Arizona Immigration Law recently signed will no doubt result in them identifying more "illegal immigrants" but that doesn't make it a good law. Justice is blind and carries a scale. There must be balance.

[applegrove]

14. I would support it for any violent crime.

[era veteran]

15. Hell no

Maybe convicted violent criminals

[PM Martin]

17. kick

[Demeter]

18. Of Course Not

Unreasonable search and seizure.

[Iggo]

20. Of course not.

[Dawson Leery]

21. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Swamp Rat]

22. I don't think people should be finger printed or even have photos taken

WTF ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

[TheKentuckian]

23. Arrest would be fuck no and conviction would slip all the way to hell no

[Onceuponalife]

24. Only anti-gay Republicants should be subject to this

That way when they are caught in the men's room with the "wide stance" you can test them right away.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I can't come up with any good reason why not.

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. no

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. The only reason that DNA should be collected at all

is if it is the only means by which guilt or innocence can be established. For example, if I were on trial for a rape or murder and knew damn well I didn't commit the crime, I would consent to a DNA test that would exonerate me.

But - seeing as I am then exonerated and have no criminal record, there should be no basis for the government to retain a sample of my DNA after the case is closed.

[PM Martin]

29. kick