NY law would be 1st to take DNA from all criminals

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

By MICHAEL VIRTANEN


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gov. David Paterson has proposed roughly doubling New York's DNA database to include samples from even low-level offenders, making it the first in the nation to so broadly collect and use this evidence to solve crimes and exonerate people wrongly convicted.

New York's law would require adding about 48,000 samples a year to a laboratory system that state officials say is capable of handling the extra work, with no current backlogs.

"You think it'd be a huge explosion, but we have samples on so many people that recommit crimes already - it's the old rule of criminals don't specialize," said Sean Byrne, acting commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

State police now have DNA samples from 356,000 people convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors, including petty larceny and endangering the welfare of a child. The database began in 1996 with the genetic material from killers and sex predators, and has been expanded three times.

Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100622/D9GGB2U00.html

[zipplewrath]

1. Traffic tickets?

I'm curious when they remove the word "criminal" from this and basically get samples from anyone who interacts with the police department. Will mouth swabs be part of paying traffic tickets next?

[Lil Missy]

2. Sounds like a great idea.

[CatWoman]

9. sounds like an excellent idea to me

:thumbsup:

[closeupready]

15. Until the day comes when they start taking DNA on behalf of the insurance industry.

After all, if it can be predicted you'll get breast cancer, shouldn't you have to pay higher premiums?

[Lil Missy]

20. That is not a reason to not take DNA. That's a reason to improve access to health care

[closeupready]

21. You seem to be more authoritarian than I am. I consider myself a classic liberal,

in favor of gun rights, and empowerment of the individual at the expense of government/state.

[superconnected]

3. Pretty soon it will be required as an American citizen not just a New Yorker stopped by the police.

I do believe that's where we're going.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Do they do that with finger prints?

[superconnected]

11. Nope, American citizens are not requred to give finger prints unless they're being booked into

custody or they're applying for a job that requires fingerprints to be taken - I had to be finger printed to work at a court house once.

[lunatica]

25. The DMV in California takes fingerprints when you get your driver's license

[lunatica]

26. wrong place

[superconnected]

27. Wow, I never knew that!

[Xithras]

28. Most of which are useless for matching against crime prints

There was a big flap a number of years ago when the DMV eliminated the ability to opt-out of fingerprinting. Up until just a few years ago, you COULD decline fingerprinting if you specifically requested it...they just didn't print that fact anywhere or tell you. The documents and presentation made it seem mandatory.

There were some hearings when the DMV finally decided that it wanted to eliminate the opt-out option entirely. During that hearing, two important things were admitted. 1) The DMV had been collecting prints from people who opted out anyway, by lifting them from their paper applications. 2) Most of the fingerprints in the system are of such poor quality that they are nearly useless for personal identification. Of the more than 30 million fingerprints they had on file, less than 10% were good enough to use with any kind of automated matching software.

Even though the DMV admitted improper behavior, and admitted that the print wasn't useful for much, the legislature still allowed them to eliminate the opt-out, and made printing mandatory for license seekers.

[Demeter]

5. I'm Praying The Economy Collapses Irrevocably First

and puts an end to such abuse of people and technology due to sheer cost and an armed rebellion.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. papers? papers? DNA? DNA?

were you just protesting ? let me swab your saliva - that is going to get you in our system

[rasputin1952]

7. The case for abuse of DNA based intrusions into not just privacy

but so many other aspects is astounding.

Physical items get lost all of the time, having an immense database on individuals is asking for disaster. Like everything else that might "look good", inevitably, there are steps made to include everyone. Since the inception of "terroristic threats" has become part of the criminal code, I have seen that used to arrest individuals and is a "catch all" for just about anything. "Someone should kick your ass", becomes something right out of a bad novel, suddenly the speaker is whisked away by the cops for a "terroristic threat", I actually witnessed this during a verbal altercation on St. Patty's day last.

This is a really bad situation.

[lovuian]

8. this is WRONG! a DNA database is wrong

Houston has had major issues with in accurate testing with DNA

this is scary stuff
fingerprinting is enough

[CatWoman]

10. maybe I've been watching too much Tru TV, especially those involving

cold case files, however, my impression is just the opposite.

DNA is much more reliable than fingerprints.

[Nihil]

24. No offence but only your first point is right ...

> maybe I've been watching too much Tru TV, ...

:shrug:

Sadly, so have most jurors who have been presented with DNA evidence in a case.


> DNA is much more reliable than fingerprints.

DNA has the capability of being much more reliable than fingerprints.

In the way that it is usually implemented, that reliability is not present.

It will not be present until the ability for human error (deliberate or accidental)
to affect either the collection process or the matching process has been all but
eliminated.

:-(

[snot]

12. Not clear: are they talking just people convicted and not under appeal, or everyone arrested?

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Probably anyone arrested. Just like they do with fingerprints

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I've seen no good argument against DNA databases.

It's just like fingerprinting. Only better.

I've seen arguments like "OMG, they could use it to screen for predilection towards cancer, and then they can tell the health insurance companies, and they'll drop you," but that's not a good argument. 1. because it's a slippery slope argument. And 2. that's not how DNA fingerprinting works.

[ProudDad]

18. The argument against is the human factor...

Botched tests, misplaced samples, etc.

And the "system". They're more interested in "catching" people than in exonerating them... "Oh, that's a close enough match!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Tests can always be repeated if there's an error.

Considering how many people DNA evidence has already exonerated, your complaints about the "system" seem weak.

[ProudDad]

23. Considering how many people are on death row, etc.

waiting for exoneration...

And being blocked by DAs and courts whose real job is protecting the rich and the status quo NOT seeking Justice...

My fears are well founded...

[closeupready]

14. Tories won in the UK over voter disgust with Big Brother-ism there;

those who eschew the lessons of that do so at their electoral peril.

[ProudDad]

17. Gee, maybe someday they'll start thinking in terms of dealing...

with the CAUSES of crime rather than the result.

Oh, but preventive measures would hurt the bottom line.

Just like Single-Payer Health Care and the permanent war economy, ending or ameliorating a problem would lower the GDP...

Can't do that in the Corporate States of Amerika...

[Odin2005]

22. Totalitarian BS!

:grr: