Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
because it expands the scope of evidence collecting from a crime scene. With fingerprints you have to actually leave one behind, and gloves can take care of that. With DNA any scrap of hair, or bodily fluid leaves something beind that can be linked to you.
so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do
All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).
Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.
Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.
so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do
All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).
dna evidence has conviceted. and the problem with dna evidence is a jury gives it a lot more weight than most other evidence. this is bullshit. they should not be able to collect any dna unless they already have enough concrete evidence to convict you of a crime. this is out of control.
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).
dna evidence has conviceted. and the problem with dna evidence is a jury gives it a lot more weight than most other evidence. this is bullshit. they should not be able to collect any dna unless they already have enough concrete evidence to convict you of a crime. this is out of control.
By your standard fingerprinting and mug shots are "out of control"
You can blame the wingnut SCOTUS majority.If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.
So much for our 4th Amendment protections.
Read more:PeoplePC - News
Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.
What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).
The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.
The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.
The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.
With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?
Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.
And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.
if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.
Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.
dna evidence has conviceted. and the problem with dna evidence is a jury gives it a lot more weight than most other evidence. this is bullshit. they should not be able to collect any dna unless they already have enough concrete evidence to convict you of a crime. this is out of control.
By your standard fingerprinting and mug shots are "out of control"
yea, they are. you can be arrested for failing to pay your taxes. for non violent crimes. why do they need a fingerprint for those? why do they need DNA? you can be arrested for a peaceful protest. for excercising your first amendment right. but you get finger printed and a mugshot. now they will take your dna too? more government over reach
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
The DNA sample in this case was taken in 2003.
Nice try.
I think we all know who is being the partisan dick here.
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
The DNA sample in this case was taken in 2003.
Nice try.
I think we all know who is being the partisan dick here.
Whomever is the current POTUS has nothing to do with the ruling of SCOTUS.I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
The DNA sample in this case was taken in 2003.
Nice try.
I think we all know who is being the partisan dick here.
and the ruling was made when ?
GMTA eh Spoonman ?
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
By your standard fingerprinting and mug shots are "out of control"
yea, they are. you can be arrested for failing to pay your taxes. for non violent crimes. why do they need a fingerprint for those? why do they need DNA? you can be arrested for a peaceful protest. for excercising your first amendment right. but you get finger printed and a mugshot. now they will take your dna too? more government over reach
When arrested you need to be identified. These thing identify you.
We are also forgetting that DNA can HELP someone accused of a crime. if you have a rape victim and the perp left DNA evidence behind, if you are somehow arrested and didnt do it, the DNA evidence could show it and eliminate you as a suspect, thus saving your ass from jail/trial and possible false conviction.
All the DNA shows is if you were there or not.
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
"It", the search (DNA sample was taken), happened in 2003.
Been going on for some time.
of course you do, because there wasn't a republican president in office when it happened
"It", the search (DNA sample was taken), happened in 2003.
Been going on for some time.
you already failed on this one. spin attempt noted
"It", the search (DNA sample was taken), happened in 2003.
Been going on for some time.
you already failed on this one. spin attempt noted
Nope. You screwed up. Didn't even bother to check when the DNA sample in question was done.
Sorry!
