1392 users online (262 members and 1130 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    133

    GOVENOR of TN doesn't want to update

    the state's DNA registry.He says it will cost too much money:

    http://search.tricities.com/DisplayC...006/03/31/0027

    The cost of letting murderers walk the streets has a very high cost to it.More than any amount of money.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The beautiful Willamette Valley/Oregon
    Posts
    7,185
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGRYWOLF
    the state's DNA registry.He says it will cost too much money:

    http://search.tricities.com/DisplayC...006/03/31/0027

    The cost of letting murderers walk the streets has a very high cost to it.More than any amount of money.
    It's past my bedtime and I haven't read the article but I don't understand how money should be a factor in something so important as the DNA registry and finding perps and child molesters. I hope he takes a good hard look at that situation. But maybe the old DNA registry is fine. Like I said I haven't read the article but I know I feel strongly about having these registries.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, TN
    Posts
    1,224
    I really don't like our Governor here in Tennessee. When we were trying to get the Titan's here the was no money spared at all. Priorities are totally out of whack.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,711
    The link will not work for me

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    I guess money versus life....money WINS! I think of it as saving money in the long run as well as LIVES especially if you can put away offenders without spending all the money trying to find out WHO the offender is and all the money in tracking them down!


    I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    10 E C
    Posts
    3,020
    I need to do some more reading on this, but I think I heard or read that there was other stuff attached to this bill that made it difficult to pass. Again, I need to do some further reading.....but I remember being astonished that he would not pass this, but it's not as simple as it sounds.

  7. #7
    tennessee is offline Blew out my flipflop. Stepped on a pop top . . .
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,013
    I believe the main sticking point is that they want to take DNA from everyone who is arrested, instead of just those convicted. I have no problem with them taking DNA from convicted people.



    JMHO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530
    I think everyone arrested is good by me - but I don't think DNA should be a privacy area - it's useful for only one thing - catching someone who has committed a crime. But the money - how much do you spend trying to find rapists, murderers, on investigations - seems to me like this would be cost effective.

  9. #9
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    I think everyone arrested is good by me - but I don't think DNA should be a privacy area - it's useful for only one thing - catching someone who has committed a crime. But the money - how much do you spend trying to find rapists, murderers, on investigations - seems to me like this would be cost effective.
    DNA is good for lots of stuff. Your health history, for example. They are also making advances in using DNA for health predicting. Not to mention what science will find as they come up with more advanced technologies.

    Just being arrested doesn't make you guilty of anything. I really don't think we should go down that slippery slope of privacy invasion by the government.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530
    They already do this - you get your fingerprints taken when arrested, and they're in the system even if you don't get convicted. I don't see this as any different. Sure, they can maybe find out if you will get diabetes in the future, someday, but that doesn't seem like much of a privacy invasion, and it seems easy enough to mandate that the info is only searchable by police.

    The funny thing about slippery slopes is that they aren't really slippery. Every time, we go as far down them as we want - and no further. Sometimes they seem slippery because once we move that direction, the decision is made that this is the right direction (for example, racists thought letting 'them' integrate into schools was part of a slippery slope where their daughter might date a black guy - and they were right - but not because the slope was slippery, but because the majority grew to believe that we were doing the right thing). When people don't like where the slope goes, we stop - another slippery slope argument I heard growing up was that the 55 mile speed limit was part of a slippery slope to slow us down to 45, 35, 25, and finally take our cars away, all in the name of fuel economy and saving lives. Never happened. We tried it, didn't like it, it was revoked.


  11. #11
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    They already do this - you get your fingerprints taken when arrested, and they're in the system even if you don't get convicted. I don't see this as any different. Sure, they can maybe find out if you will get diabetes in the future, someday, but that doesn't seem like much of a privacy invasion, and it seems easy enough to mandate that the info is only searchable by police.

    The funny thing about slippery slopes is that they aren't really slippery. Every time, we go as far down them as we want - and no further. Sometimes they seem slippery because once we move that direction, the decision is made that this is the right direction (for example, racists thought letting 'them' integrate into schools was part of a slippery slope where their daughter might date a black guy - and they were right - but not because the slope was slippery, but because the majority grew to believe that we were doing the right thing). When people don't like where the slope goes, we stop - another slippery slope argument I heard growing up was that the 55 mile speed limit was part of a slippery slope to slow us down to 45, 35, 25, and finally take our cars away, all in the name of fuel economy and saving lives. Never happened. We tried it, didn't like it, it was revoked.
    Ah, but so many times it DOES happen. Just off the top of my head- I could come up with lots more, if I thought about it longer...

    Social Security numbers- when they were first issued, people were afraid of the privacy violation. They were assured that only the government would have access for social security purposes only. Where are we today? It's such a common identifier that everyone and there brother has access to it. Lots of privacy issues there. Even the IRS wants to be able to sell your financial information!

    Seat belts- this applies to my state (Michigan) only, because I don't much follow the seat belt laws in other states.
    First, it was let's make a law saying you have to wear your seat belt. But you can't get pulled over for wearing it, it has to be a secondary offense. We were assured that it wouldn't go further than that. Now, of course, it has. You can get pulled over and ticketed for not having it on.

    Let's look at Texas- Drinking and driving is bad, right? Agreed.
    Now they are going into bars and arresting people for being drunk- in case they make a bad decision!

    Having an individual's DNA is just to tempting, in my opinion. So we mandate that only law officers have access. Why? For a good reason. To combat crime. Yet, think of how much crime they could fight if they had the right to enter anyone's home at any time and look through their personal property. Thankfully, the Constitution doesn't allow that.

    So what happens when the insurance lobby convinces law makers that they have a good reason, too? To determine how to best insure everyone, they should have access to that information.

    What about employers? They shouldn't have to hire someone who has the probability of turning out to have a major disease, should they?

    I think there is a reason that old sayings are still around, and that's because there is a nugget of truth in so many of them. The one that comes to mind right now is "Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530
    But in those cases you are talking about - the laws generally changed, the behavior changed because people wanted it to - the slope is only slippery if the majority want it to be - whether because of all the people unnecessarily killed and maimed (and on the taxpayers dime) because they weren't wearing a seatbelt - or because some drunk goes out of the bar and hits the road.

    SSN - it was too useful not to be used. Do the majority of people not want to give out their SSN, or do they want the convenience of having that one identifier? The pain of not having it is worse than letting it be used that way, so people chose, individually, over these past few decades, to let it be used as an ID for certain types of records. And a lot of places, you can opt not to give it, and they'll use a different type of number to represent you in the system.

    Just because there's a difference between the initial intent (at the time of school integration, there were still plenty of laws against black/white sexual relations), and the final result doesn't mean we were uncontrollingly pushed down a slippery slope - we chose to walk that way. We could just as easily choose to walk back - and we often enough have.

  13. #13
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    But in those cases you are talking about - the laws generally changed, the behavior changed because people wanted it to - the slope is only slippery if the majority want it to be - whether because of all the people unnecessarily killed and maimed (and on the taxpayers dime) because they weren't wearing a seatbelt - or because some drunk goes out of the bar and hits the road.

    SSN - it was too useful not to be used. Do the majority of people not want to give out their SSN, or do they want the convenience of having that one identifier? The pain of not having it is worse than letting it be used that way, so people chose, individually, over these past few decades, to let it be used as an ID for certain types of records. And a lot of places, you can opt not to give it, and they'll use a different type of number to represent you in the system.

    Just because there's a difference between the initial intent (at the time of school integration, there were still plenty of laws against black/white sexual relations), and the final result doesn't mean we were uncontrollingly pushed down a slippery slope - we chose to walk that way. We could just as easily choose to walk back - and we often enough have.
    True, true. And it sounds like the reasons the various entities will use to gain access to all of our DNA records. Doesn't make it right. And the majority wants it?? That's exactly what the founding fathers DIDN'T want our country to be based on.

    I believe we need to cherish our personal freedoms. Little by little they have been, and will continue to be, chipped away at. Politicians have learned that it works to play on people's fears. Get people whipped into a hysteria, and they can pass darn near any law they want. People can keep giving up chunks of their freedom, but will, in my opinion, come to regret it. Many regret it now...

    The basis of this country is (was) freedom. Limited power to the government to limit that freedom. IMO, we are dangerously veering away from the basis of our foundation. And how has it happened? Little by little. Human beings are adaptable, and can adjust and accept small changes. That's how one eats the elephant.

    Oops, got to go. Be back shortly.

    ETA: PLUS-
    you can cook a frog without him jumping out of the pot - just put him in a pot of cool water, then gradually turn up the heat. Eventually, without him realizing how hot it's getting, it'll get hot enough to cook him


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530
    I thought that was how you cook a frog...

  15. #15
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    I thought that was how you cook a frog...
    I don't know how to cook a frog. I have tried to make myself eat frog legs, 'cause they are supposed to taste like chicken. But they look JUST LIKE LITTLE FROGGY LEGS!!!

    Nope, nope, nope. I'll stick to chicken!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 10:47 AM
  2. CA Govenor Signs Package of Sex Predator Laws
    By chicoliving in forum A CALL TO ACTION! Calif. DMH Illegally Releases 17,000 Sex Offenders
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-02-2006, 04:06 AM