Prosecutors Want Your Bodily Essence, DNA at Arrest?

[Kirk Freeman]

Prosecutors in Indiana are pushing for collecting DNA upon arrest, citing the arrest of the man who alleged committed a murder in Boone County and then shot up an Indianapolis police sub-station.

What are you thoughts on this proposal being pushed by law enforcement?

Solid story in the Indianapolis Star Friday:

Should police take a DNA sample when making arrests?

 

[Vigilant]

Maybe ok to take it, but it should be removed and destroyed if no charges are brought, acquittal, or even a reduction to misdemeanor. (Unlikely to happen, but).

 

[halfmileharry]

Mark of the beast.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope, don't like it. Convict them first. Vigilant, in theory it would work if you could put the genie back in the bottle, but I think it can't be done.

 

[T.Lex]

This is another step down the slippery slope.

Why, I remember when the suggested policy was only DNA collection for sex-related crimes where, you know, DNA was REALLY helpful. Then the list incrementally increased to include other bad crimes, and now I think it is all felonies, right?

Generally, I think felony conviction is the right "level." I could be persuaded to limit the kinds of felonies, but relaxing the limitation seems like a singularly bad idea.

Especially when it is so easy to get DNA from "abandoned" items from a suspect or an actual warrant.

 

[HoughMade]

Nope, don't like it. Convict them first. Vigilant, in theory it would work if you could put the genie back in the bottle, but I think it can't be done.

Agreed. Once collected, it will be analyzed and once analyzed, it will be a computer file....which will never be destroyed.

Conviction first, or at least a warrant as to why the collection is necessary to the pending case, not a theoretical future case.

 

[MCgrease08]

Nope, don't like it. Convict them first. Vigilant, in theory it would work if you could put the genie back in the bottle, but I think it can't be done.

Agreed. Once collected, it will be analyzed and once analyzed, it will be a computer file....which will never be destroyed.

Conviction first, or at least a warrant as to why the collection is necessary to the pending case, not a theoretical future case.

I agree with both of you that securing a conviction first should be the requirement, but how does collecting DNA at the time of arrest differ from something like finger printing, which is done at the time of arrest?

It seems like both identifing markers are used similarly during the course of an investigation, so from a legal or ethical perspective, is DNA more personal than something like a finger print?

 

[Stickfight]

I agree with both of you that securing a conviction first should be the requirement, but how does collecting DNA at the time of arrest differ from something like finger printing, which is done at the time of arrest?

It seems like both identifing markers are used similarly during the course of an investigation, so from a legal or ethical perspective, is DNA more personal than something like a finger print?

From a simple technical perspective, DNA contains much more useful information about a person than a fingerprint. So much more than I'm opposed to the State collecting it at all, ever. This is partly because we all have a right to be secure in our persons against unreasonable search and seizure, and the overwhelming majority of information DNA can provide is likely not relevant in any given State investigation. It is also because even if the State could be trusted to extract only the relevant information, it is incapable of securing it or any that it doesn't extract, from 3rd parties.

With your fingerprint I can uniquely identify whether or not you touched something with your fingers. With your DNA I can know roughly that, and where your family tree originated, what genetic diseases your have, and your susceptibility to a range of other diseases. I can predict your response to several genetic therapies as well as a number of other medical treatments. Very soon I'll likely be able to know quite a lot about your mental health. In the future I'll probably be able to make a genetic copy of you rather quickly, as opposed to now when I can just make copies of some of your body parts.

If if I get some combination of your kids' DNA, your parents', your siblings', or your spouse's some more possibilities open up for knowing quote a bit.

 

[BogWalker]

Let's also think of the possibility of DNA being used for identification purposes in the future. Maybe it's just sci-fi that will never happen, but if it does then you're looking at quite the effective new method of identity theft from data breaches.

 

[Thegeek]

I believe a warrant should be required.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You guys do know that a DNA test to match samples isn't the same test to reveal genetic defects, etc...right?

Sort of like testing blood for alcohol. You COULD test it for HIV...but is that a reason to not use blood evidence for alcohol?

 

[Stickfight]

I would like it if you were to explain the differences between the two tests and what you believe the "sample matching" test has in common with the test for alcohol content of blood.

 

[traderdan]

Uh....how can anyone be in favor of such an idea??

 

[BogWalker]

You guys do know that a DNA test to match samples isn't the same test to reveal genetic defects, etc...right?

Sort of like testing blood for alcohol. You COULD test it for HIV...but is that a reason to not use blood evidence for alcohol?

I think the issue at hand is more the cataloging of DNA and the possible uses of that. Once they've got it on file they could sequence it however they pleased.

 

[warthog]

I really don't want to be cataloged. I find it offensive my ID pix are used in facial recognition software instead of using known, convicted, offenders only.

It isn't going to get better. The prince of the air is running things and is ramping up for his big push...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the issue at hand is more the cataloging of DNA and the possible uses of that. Once they've got it on file they could sequence it however they pleased.

"Fingerprinting" DNA is not what you think of as sequencing. Much of your DNA, my DNA, even chimpanzee DNA, is pretty similar. It would be time consuming, expensive, and pointless to "sequence" the DNA for comparison purposes. Instead, a few key points that are highly variable are compared against one another.

Your DNA "sequence" is not in the criminal justice database. It is not a video that can be reviewed later for additional information. It is a collection of a few data points.

DNA fingerprinting will not give you any information about an individual's actual DNA sequence -- the sequence of "letters" that makes up his genetic code. DNA fingerprinting is generally used in forensics to match samples with suspects, while DNA sequencing is generally used in scientific research, where scientists need to know the sequence of a piece of DNA to figure out more about its function.Techniques


Some of the techniques used in DNA fingerprinting and DNA sequencing are similar but there are some differences. DNA fingerprinting makes use of a technique that makes many copies of a short stretch of DNA and gel electrophoresis, a technique that separates pieces of DNA based on their size. DNA sequencing, by contrast, uses more complicated techniques to specifically to determine the sequence of letters in a piece of DNA. The difference can be compared to using an inked thumbprint to identify someone, as opposed to analyzing all the details about how the thumb works.

The Difference Between Gene Sequencing and DNA Fingerprints | The Classroom | Synonym

Or, if you'd like a bit more academic version:

https://www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting

I would like it if you were to explain the differences between the two tests and what you believe the "sample matching" test has in common with the test for alcohol content of blood.

See above. There's a lot of information in blood. The test for alcohol only reveals alcohol. There's a lot of information in DNA (and, since your blood contains DNA...) but "fingerprinting" does not extract or even notice the vast majority of it. It's not going to reveal genetic defects, let someone clone you, etc. any more than height/weight/hair color/eye color would let someone who's never seen you make an accurate painting of you.

 

[BugI02]

[h=1]Prosecutors Want Your Bodily Essence, DNA at Arrest?[/h]
What's their position on fluoridation?

 

[Expat]

How cute is the gal collecting my.... err... dna....

 

[voidsherpa]

A lot of hoops to jump through for being innocent until proven guilty.

 

[BogWalker]

BBI, I'm not saying fingerprinting = sequencing. What I'm saying is the DNA collected for fingerprinting could be used for sequencing if those who had charge of it desired.