1097 users online (224 members and 873 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1

    My problem with the Children's Safety Act

    In a nutshell:

    `(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

    What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

    IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.
    Just the facts, Ma'am.

  2. #2
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostwheel View Post
    In a nutshell:

    `(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

    What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

    IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.
    I think DNA should be taken upon conviction. I understand where they are coming from in wanting DNA to compare to evidence in other cases. It would probably clear many cold cases.

    Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with LE collecting DNA from family members, etc....heck, I will give a sample. There is already an easy way to collect DNA via a cheek swab with an oversized Q-tip.

    We're all in the system one way or another. What's the big deal about taking a DNA sample?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,071
    I personally think it is a great idea. I would like to see every single person living give a DNA sample. I would also like to see each state start putting finger prints on driver's licenses. Eventially every person or most anyway would have DNA and finger prints on file. I think this would solve a lot of cases. Think of the case there are where LE have finger prints from a crime scene but no one to match them to because the person doesn't have a criminal history. I think it is about time the government gets down to business.

    Remember when random UA testing was first brought up? Some people just had a fit. I always thought...if you aren't into drugs what is there to fear? Now everyone that I know who has applied for a job has to give a UA...no big deal. I think it is great. People will adjust to giving a DNA sample too.

  4. #4
    It is a double edged sword. While LE having the DNA samples of the criminal element is a great thing...having the DNA of John Q. Public at large could lead to other issues such as being able to plant such as evidence. It is rather a scary thought for LE to have too much control over DNA and how it can be accessed.

    I agree DNA should only be taken in Felony convictions.
    "WE SEEK FOR THE TRUTH. WE SEEK JUSTICE.
    THE COURTS REQUIRE IT. THE VICTIMS CRY FOR IT
    AND GOD DEMANDS IT!"

    A quote spray painted on the wall by search
    and rescue workers, Team 5, at the OKC Bombing site 4-19-1995.



    What I post are my opinions only.

  5. #5
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957
    Good point about planted evidence, Seriously Searching. I don't think the police should have physical custody of the actual DNA...they should only have the printed report and the information entered into CODIS.

  6. #6
    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
    IMO, the only legal way to collect it is from those that are convicted. Once convicted of a crime, your rights change. Until then, it's unconstitutional. As an American, you have a right to privacy, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    Having freedom can be messy, but, as Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119

    No to the DNA aspect

    I agree with those erring on the side of conviction prior to the collection of DNA-Folks, we have had our personal liberties narrowed enough in our post 911 world. Tell me, has airport profiling and identity checks yielded any terrorists? Don't you think if it had, the current administration would be trumpeting it to the world? Next will be our medical/insurance histories microchipped-anyone get a sense of what is going on with the VA lately? Only recently thousands of vets had their information stolen or lost...and that was from a government agency! We cannot restrict the many for the benefit of the few; I would love cold cases solved as much as anyone...I work and pray about them. I have one contained within my extended family-but I don't want this done at the expense of my personal freedom.

    Who are you if you do not have a driver's license, a SS card, a birth certificate. You do not exist-yet here on WS we have a case of a live, healthy intelligent individual who has amnesia. He cannot work, obtain benefits, have a bank account, a credit card, a driver's license because he cannot "prove" his identity. Yet he exists...it is crazy.

  8. #8
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957
    There is a DNA test kit that will soon be on the shelf in the stores, if it is not already available.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostwheel View Post
    In a nutshell:

    `(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, detained, or convicted under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

    What this means is that if anyone is detained for any reason, including a broken taillight or violating curfew, they can take DNA samples from you. I have no doubt that as soon as it is allowed, an easy way to take DNA samples will surface, and anyone who is ever stopped for any reason will be forced to have their DNA taken, even if it is a bogus charge. Once they get the DNA, you can't make them give it back. How do you think the nation is going to feel about Big Brother having DNA from their children (or even their own) in a database somewhere?

    IMO, this alone could kill this initiative.
    Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

    I'm not going to buy into this fear mongering from the ACLU types that think that passing tough laws on child sex offenders is going to cause us to loose all our freedoms.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by believe09 View Post
    I agree with those erring on the side of conviction prior to the collection of DNA-Folks, we have had our personal liberties narrowed enough in our post 911 world. Tell me, has airport profiling and identity checks yielded any terrorists? Don't you think if it had, the current administration would be trumpeting it to the world? Next will be our medical/insurance histories microchipped-anyone get a sense of what is going on with the VA lately? Only recently thousands of vets had their information stolen or lost...and that was from a government agency! We cannot restrict the many for the benefit of the few; I would love cold cases solved as much as anyone...I work and pray about them. I have one contained within my extended family-but I don't want this done at the expense of my personal freedom.

    Who are you if you do not have a driver's license, a SS card, a birth certificate. You do not exist-yet here on WS we have a case of a live, healthy intelligent individual who has amnesia. He cannot work, obtain benefits, have a bank account, a credit card, a driver's license because he cannot "prove" his identity. Yet he exists...it is crazy.
    I don't understand how we have had our personal liberties narrowed since 9/11. The Patriot Act IMO is a very good legislation, I think we should have thought about that before 9/11.

    The Patriot Act just doesn't fight terrorism, but the justice department has been using it to catch child pornographers.

    I'm just not worried, because I am not a child pornographer, drug trafficker, black mailer, spy, or a corrupt foreign leader.

    Who would argue that a tool that cracks down on child predators or domestic terrorists is a bad tool?


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbisangel View Post
    I personally think it is a great idea. I would like to see every single person living give a DNA sample. I would also like to see each state start putting finger prints on driver's licenses. Eventially every person or most anyway would have DNA and finger prints on file. I think this would solve a lot of cases. Think of the case there are where LE have finger prints from a crime scene but no one to match them to because the person doesn't have a criminal history. I think it is about time the government gets down to business.

    Remember when random UA testing was first brought up? Some people just had a fit. I always thought...if you aren't into drugs what is there to fear? Now everyone that I know who has applied for a job has to give a UA...no big deal. I think it is great. People will adjust to giving a DNA sample too.
    I agree 100%

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    104
    dna testing is not always 100% accurate, especially in the case of men who have the same father but different mothers, there have been cases where multiple samples taken under different conditions yield different results.

    imagine your half brother gets arrested, and is being charged with murder. He says you did the killing and is willing to testify against you in court. he gets a sweet deal and you go to jail and you never did anything wrong.



    these things happen.

    you must consider all options when looking at something like this.





    ~lightwaveryder~

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    South Orange County
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Levi View Post
    Why would someone have a problem with giving their DNA unless they have something to hide?

    I'm not going to buy into this fear mongering from the ACLU types that think that passing tough laws on child sex offenders is going to cause us to loose all our freedoms.
    I have a problem with it - and I don't have anything to hide.
    Talk about the epitome of privacy breech. I shouldn't have to prove I'm not guilty of some random what if.
    There's not an agency out there that I would trust to safeguard the information.

  14. #14
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957
    Quote Originally Posted by lightwaveryder View Post
    dna testing is not always 100% accurate, especially in the case of men who have the same father but different mothers, there have been cases where multiple samples taken under different conditions yield different results.

    imagine your half brother gets arrested, and is being charged with murder. He says you did the killing and is willing to testify against you in court. he gets a sweet deal and you go to jail and you never did anything wrong.



    these things happen.

    you must consider all options when looking at something like this.








    ~lightwaveryder~
    That's not the way I understand it. A man will not have the exact same DNA as his father since he gets half from his mother and half from his father. There will not be a match with the father so the son can be ruled out by DNA. That's what's really good about it as far as justice is concerned.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,778
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishMist View Post
    IMO, the only legal way to collect it is from those that are convicted. Once convicted of a crime, your rights change. Until then, it's unconstitutional. As an American, you have a right to privacy, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    Having freedom can be messy, but, as Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
    Then how do you explain fingerprints? When someone is arrested they are fingerprinted and a mug shot taken. This is BEFORE conviction. How is this any different than collecting DNA?

    I am a licensed contractor. I had to give up my prints in order to be licensed. My husband is a teacher. He also had to be printed in order to have his job. I don't see how DNA is any different.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Children's Safety Act
    By tybee204 in forum A CALL TO ACTION! Calif. DMH Illegally Releases 17,000 Sex Offenders
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 03:55 AM
  2. A message to the community with regard to our children’s safety
    By PrayersForMaura in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2005, 04:09 PM