My problem with the Children's Safety Act

Discussion in 'A CALL TO ACTION! Calif. DMH Illegally Releases 17' started by Ghostwheel, Sep 20, 2007.

  1. Ghostwheel

    Ghostwheel Pyrrhonist

    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. SewingDeb

    SewingDeb "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  4. Bobbisangel

    Bobbisangel New Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching Active Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  6. SewingDeb

    SewingDeb "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. IrishMist

    IrishMist You can't control the wind - but you can adjust yo

    Messages:
    7,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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."
     
  8. believe09

    believe09 Active Member

    Messages:
    28,114
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  9. SewingDeb

    SewingDeb "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a DNA test kit that will soon be on the shelf in the stores, if it is not already available.
     
  10. Levi

    Levi New Member

    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Levi

    Levi New Member

    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  12. Levi

    Levi New Member

    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree 100%
     
  13. lightwaveryder

    lightwaveryder New Member

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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~
     
  14. justche

    justche Former Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. SewingDeb

    SewingDeb "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Pepper

    Pepper Former Member

    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Pepper

    Pepper Former Member

    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's my understanding too. The only time DNA is identical to another family member is in the case of identical twins.
     
  18. Zanko

    Zanko New Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it's a great idea to take DNA. But with the current backlog I'm afraid it would take 10 years to get the data entered! Especially if they are taking everyone's DNA who is arrested. Might be more feasible to take DNA from those convicted, even with a misdemeanor.
     
  19. 4eyedbuzzard

    4eyedbuzzard New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal. :rolleyes:

    What's that sound? Oh, just the Framers rolling in heir graves.

    4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     
  20. Pepper

    Pepper Former Member

    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But no one is addressing my question below. If you can take fingerprints from anyone for any reason, why not DNA? What's the difference?

     
  21. 4eyedbuzzard

    4eyedbuzzard New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The government can't take fingerprints from anyone for any reason. You freely chose to pursue professions and employers that required it as a condition of employment/commerce. And whether I agree with that or not is immaterial. But the justification for further intruding on the right to be secure in one's personal effects cannot simply be that (via due process) we have done so in the past in certain limited instances and situations. There is no probable cause or evidence to suggest that every citizen should be allowed to be searched and their DNA seized.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice