Letters to the Editor
-
I'm confused
Don't they already use DNA testing in rape cases if at all possible? What would this law do besides standardize the accepted and usual procedure?
And DNA testing has cleared a lot of innocent people. It does have more than 99% accuracy. Not sure what's "Orwellian" about employing such a useful tool. It's every bit as good as fingerprinting, and nobody screams Orwell when your prints are taken.
Dumb post.
-
"The innocent have nothing to fear."
Linney, after you finish heroically slaughtering that Straw Man you've been pursuing for years now, perhaps you'd care to comment on why the language quoted in the header above comes so often from right-wingers and so seldom from us arugula-eating feminazis?
Like all cool technology, DNA testing (DNA anything, frankly) can give us a false sense of certainty. In the criminal justice system, a false sense of certainty means convicting innocent people. Surely it's easier to plant DNA evidence than it is to plant good old-fashioned fingerprints. After conviction, OK, keep the DNA. But not upon arrest. DNA is too easy to throw around.
-
well
And DNA testing is only as good as the people conducting it. It is not some infallible method for figuring out who is who. DNA testing can be expensive and time-consuming to run, and forensic scientists are already overbooked. Sometimes corners end up getting cut, mistakes get made. Multiplying the quantity of their workload by god knows what factor is not going to make testing any more accurate or reliable.
-
As Usual, Fear Will Motivate Control
Very sensible article, Mr. Hannaham. What struck me as most disturbing was the suggestion that those arrested would have their DNA cataloged, which basically means that an arrest alone is a conviction of sorts. Remember friends, "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Our individual DNA is a very personal thing, the knowledge of which could be used in various nefarious ways. It is about time people realized that government agencies and government institutions should not be allowed to have too much information about us as individuals. Anyone who would like some reference for these issues should consult any of Foucault's excellent books. The kind of power we are discussing giving to law enforcement is unconscionable. DNA is too precious and too personal to be allowed to be used as a tool of our continuing oppression.
-
@ Tina Schrier
As far as dumb posts are concerned...
If you had read the article you would have noticed that this new law would mandate DNA tests for anyone who was ever arrested for any violent crime, not just rape, and not just people who were actually convicted. That means their DNA would be on record for as long as the state wanted, even though they were potentially innocent both in the law's eyes as well as in reality.
Obviously rape suspects get their DNA taken on a regular basis. But this is far different than that.
I should add to my own previous post the danger that DNA poses as a weapon to implicate others in your own crime. Even if the lab is flawless in its work, who's to say that someone who hated you didn't leave your hair on the scene of their own crime? It sounds conspiracy-theory-esque, but people's blind faith in the reliability of DNA testing is such that people have been framed for crimes they didn't commit based on the presence of their DNA where they never actually were.
-
Read the post, tina!
It's not for people embroiled in a rape case. It's for anyone arrested for a violent crime of any kind.
-
Re - Those who are innocent have nothing to fear
Except their Insurance Companies.
So until we have National Health Insurance where everyone is covered regardless of medical condition, I'm against any proposal that requires forking over any medical information to anyone absent a warrant or a criminal conviction.
And no, I don't trust that the government will keep the Insurance Companies from getting this information.
-
Melthough and "planting DNA evidence"
If I read your post correctly, then you're saying one risk is that crooked authroities would have the means to plant your DNA at crime scenes, but (correct me if I'm wrong, and nicely please)...
Everyone's DNA would be taken baiscally as a swab from one's cheek, then that run through whatever do-hickey gives you the donor's "map" (wow I suck at science..).
Crime scene DNA would be blood, semen, hair, sweat, skin, etc. So unless the authorities have a way to recreate actual tissue and fluids from your cheek swab, it should be near impossible to plant DNA evidence, no?
I say swab and fingerprint everybody in the country. If things/government get so bad that people are tracked and framed for crimes and cloned or what have you - then frankly being falsely accused of a crime is the least of my problems.
-
Also, tina
Regarding fingerprints: they aren't portable.
-
Post-traumatic psychology
PTSD puts you in a state of eternal watchfulness and hypervigilance. It's not a good mindset for the rest of society but when you've been traumatized, that's what your brain does to you.
You're willing to sacrifice the innocent to protect yourself from further trauma. That's how the brain is built to react, unfortunately, when it's been damaged by violence.
That's why it's just as important to concentrate on healing the victim as it to work to incarcerate the perpetrator, IMHO.
It's important for society, because you're not going to have an open society if the population has too much unhealed and untreated PTSD.
Unfortunately, the crime victims' movement does not encourage healing. It encourages hypervigilance, which is the opposite of healing.
-
planting evidence
good comment- DNA evidence is a lot easier to plant than a finger print.
I hadn't thought about that.
-
Rosenkavalier...
Your posts appeared online while I was writing my original, so to continue on my how difficult it would be to plant DNA evidence...
in your example of someone planting your hair at a crime scene - assuming all else is equal - there would still need to be sufficient cause/probable guilt for you to be a likely candidate, other than just your hair's presence.
The prosecutor would still need to come up with motive, opportunity, prior history, etc. So what, your hair's in the room - why did you bludgeon that 80 yr old woman with a hammer?
Your greater problem is that someone is actively trying to frame you for a horrible crime (itself a punishable offense) - not that your DNA is on some national databank.
Now again, if the feds are doing this as a matter of course (framing people for whatever reason) then the larger issue is that they're corrupt and evil. They're use of citizen's DNA is the least of it. If they didn't have the DNA as an excuse/tool, they'd just think of something else and send us off to the camps anyhow.