like the oversight that allowed disease testing (endstage) on blacks (i.e. human testing) in the past. Great place to put responsibility like this.
Without the system being voluntary, they are taking something without consent... i.e. seizure. They are reading it without permission i.e. search. Not cool
So should we scrap the SS system? Should we throw away all our databases because the government cant be trusted?
And, this may interest you, you discard your DNA millions of times every day. Skin cells, hairs, saliva, sweat etc etc. You are DAILY discarding your entire genetic code.
Would it be more satisfying if a nurse picked a hair out of a newborn baby's hospital crib and entered that DNA information into the database? As that is legal, anything that is discarded by a person is considered fair game for law enforcement, that includes DNA in the form of hair or spit.
Before we have a national database, we need to ask the following. Can we trust our government and can we trust our police? I'd say a resounding no to both questions (in my country at least).
I am not addressing the UK, I am speaking only of the US currently.
I'm not sure how much information you can gain from DNA records, but i'd be concerned about a government 20 years down the line selling this information on. I'd imagine if life insurance companies and such could get hold of this data AND it were possible to gain information such as genetic diseases from samples, i would think they would pay a lot of money for this information.
And as I have explained about twenty times now, this database will only be open to law enforcement, NOT researchers of ANY type. Civilian oversight will help ensure this.
Also it is very easy to plant DNA information at a crime scene. All you need is a hair from a suspect. The police could quite easily do this to secure a conviction when they *think* they have the right man. Ever heard of a bent copper? Of course there are other ways to frame a person, but DNA evidence holds a lot of weight in our courts.
You apparently dont understand what Im saying. A DNA database would hold a virtual copy of your DNA to be compared against an unknown sample that has been mapped and processed. It is virtually impossible to take a virtual copy of your genetic makeup and re-create physical DNA that is an exact match to you.
The DNA thing is not a slam dunk in court. There have been cases where it's been flat wrong. It took alot of time and effort to prove it. It's just not the "great equalizer" people want to make it out to be.
See, DNA IS a slam dunk when its utilized and handled properly. What cases has DNA been wrong in, cite them for me. I'd be willing to bet money that the error came from technicians switching vials by accident, not from the DNA itself. DNA is unique to each individual person, NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH has your exact genetic makeup, which is what makes it a great system for differentiating between people when verbal or written identity is in question.
DNA is not perfect because of the human element. So we should automatically exclude any system that isnt 100% perfect all the time? The point is that its astronomically better than what we have now and can lead to many many people being cleared of a crime they did not commit.
Others object to it on the basis of the 4th Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't know what / if the Supreme Court has ruled on that yet.
Many people fear that a DNA database would eventually be accessed by Insurance Companies and employers to check for the potential to develop certain illnesses, and then used as a reason to not insure or not hire.
Some people fear that someone like Adolf Hitler could come into power in the future and misuse information in the database in the kind of witch hunt that Hitler used against the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Some fear profiling, and since the UK has already proposed the DNA database be used for profiling, I figure that is a pretty reasonable concern.
I have addressed all this previously
Others fear that human error could result in blacklisting of innocent people. If someone's DNA is mislabled to the wrong individual in the database as belonging to a sex offender or something like that, how can you straighten it out without massive legal and medical testing expenses?
Every positive hit is double checked to make sure it is a truly positive hit and not a case of vial switching. I would question how much faulty legal proceedings currently cost us and weigh that against the cost of a DNA test
A mistake at the Genelex lab resulted in a false report of paternity.
Cellmark, a lab used by the California law enforcement officials, processed DNA in a sexual assault case, and accidentally switched the sample from the victim's vaginal swab with the sample from the suspect, which created the illusion that the the victim's swab showed the suspect's DNA. They were actually in court, giving testimony, when the technician from Cellmark who was testifying about the findings realized something looked funny, and insisted on reviewing the report, catching the mistake. Had there been a plea bargain before that case, or someone less observant had been testifying, the suspect would have gone to jail on a false DNA report.
The same thing happened again in Philadelphia, except it wasn't caught. The defense attorney HAD convinced his client to plea bargain because the evidence was against him, the client said it was impossible, so the defense attorney asked for another lab to review the results. They caught the mistake.
In Las Vegas a man was arrested for violating immigration laws. His cellmate accused him of rape. DNA was taken from both men, then mislabeled. The samples taken were compared against the unsolved assaults database, and they hit on several cases. Unfortunately, because of the label mixup, the hits on the unsolved cases were attributed to the wrong men.
In the BCA case, evidence from two different cases were switched.
A mistake that can be combated by double testing positive hits. One thing Im curious about, why is a CALIFORNIA law-enforcement office using a DNA service...in the UK? That doesn't make much sense.
Like when the Bureau of Indian Affairs transferred responsibility for the health of native Americans to the Public Health Services, and they started sterilizing native American women without consent, and sometimes without telling them they were going to do so. They went in for pain, were told they needed an appendectomy and woke up with a tubal ligation. This was official policy because someone decided the indians were having too many children. (By the way, this is in between 1970 and 1980.) Some estimates show that as many as 60,000 women were sterilized without consent.
BIA is not law enforcement
