should people arrested for a felony be required to submit a dna sample, court says ye

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
while the dna information can be purged from the national database if the person is not convicted, should dna information be taken before conviction, the 9th appeals court, on a split decision, says yes

the thought is that dna is like fingerprints and fingerprints have been routinely taken and entered into a national database and compared against the national database so why not dna

the dna information can be compared against other dna information in the national database to identify a person that may have been involved in another crime

the case is currently on appeal to scotus

i have mixed feelings about this, but tend to come down on the side for collecting dna

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-finds-dna-testing-constitutional-012601061.html
 
in cases where DNA evidence can link defendants to other unsolved crimes, the taking of DNA isn't any different than using fingerprints or other forensic evidence. the problem comes down to the government compiling a DNA database for later crime solving because they inevitably intend to release this violent criminal back in to society.

If you can't be trusted without a custodian, you should remain behind bars.
 
No, it should be allowed to be collected after a conviction, not an indictment. The basics of innocent until proven guilty.
 
Rune said:
No, it should be allowed to be collected after a conviction, not an indictment. The basics of innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

if dna is used in the identification process, then it is like fingerprints and may be used and if the person is not found guilty both the fingerprints and dna need to be purged from the national databases
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top