The gov has figured out how to exploit Kathy Taft's death:

Quote :

"Can a law require an arrested person to live forever through DNA? In 23 states, the answer is "yes," and North Carolina might soon follow suit. Last year, 27 House legislators sponsored House Bill 1403, which would allow law enforcement officers to collect a DNA sample from any person arrested on a felony charge. The bill, however, was never ratified, and as the state lawmakers reconvene for the 2010 legislative session, they are being asked to try again. [...] "We want to expand our DNA database," said North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper told NC Wanted. Cooper has long pushed for and succeeded in expanding the SBI crime lab's DNA testing capabilities. "We believe, if we get more samples in the database earlier, then we can solve crimes more quickly," he added. The bill's supporters say such a DNA arrest law would help stop repeat offenders. Statistics show that those who commit felonies are likely to have committed other crimes. "If we receive the (DNA) sample upon arrest, versus the person having to be convicted, which could take years, we will then test the sample more quickly, upload it to our database more quickly and potentially get a hit more quickly," said Amanda Overman, state administrator for the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, also known as CODIS. One example of where such a law could have proved beneficial is with the arrest of Jason Williford, a Raleigh man charged with first-degree murder, rape and burglary in the high-profile homicide of state Board of Education member Kathy Taft."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7606244/

Apparently arrest and conviction are the same thing now. At least we're not California:

Quote :

"Some state laws, such as California, require DNA samples from every person arrested, regardless if it is a felony."

Didn't the UK have a similar law at one time?

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 9:27 AM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 9:25:35 AM

The only solution is to not be taken alive.

5/15/2010 9:36:38 AM

Fuck California and the UK with a rusty spoon. Seriously. That is completely fucked up.



Attorneys General should not be thinking like this: "We believe, if we __________ (do something that's clearly past the line), then we can solve crimes more quickly." Well no shit! I know! If we put cameras everywhere, then we can solve crimes more quickly. If we put tracking devices on everyone, then we can solve crimes more quickly. If we put brain monitoring chips in everyone's brain, then we can solve crimes more quickly. If we turn society into a police state, then we can solve crimes more quickly.

5/15/2010 1:25:26 PM

Holy shit, how has this not been struck down by the courts?

5/15/2010 2:01:30 PM

Probably because they haven't actually caught anyone yet.

5/15/2010 4:46:20 PM

What's the chance of changing that judicial rule where only victims can sue?
I don't like that shit. Of course, we can't clog the system either, but there's gotta be a middle ground....

5/15/2010 6:49:51 PM

I don’t see how this is different than taking someone’s fingerprint.

5/15/2010 7:02:24 PM

...because DNA is just a simple biometric, nothing else.

5/15/2010 7:08:58 PM

Umm… it is, in this case.

They aren’t taking blood samples, or chunks of skin, or stem cells from your bone, they’re swabbing your cheek, running that through a machine, and storing the profile on a computer.

They aren’t retaining the swab samples (because that’s a pretty expensive thing to do) after they are sequenced.

5/15/2010 7:17:03 PM

The difficulty of finding quality latent prints somewhat limits the police's ability to go on fishing expeditions. Now they can harass anyone who has ever had involvement with the police, simply because they happened to throw away a coffee cup in the same public parking garage some bored teenage assholes decided to vandalize and steal fire extinguishers from.


Fingerprint databases, DNA databases, RPD's ability drive down the road scanning 1000's of license plates per second (with no data retention policy), records of Amazon purchases..."they" are collecting a lot of information. It's only a matter of time before they start using that information to make things 'easier' for themselves. Things are supposed to be easy for you, as an individual. Things are not supposed to be easy for law enforcement or the government.

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 7:56:15 AM

^^
...because a DNA sequence is just a simple biometric, nothing else.


(Really, though. Assuming you're actually defending this, you do not deserve to live in America. Get out.)

Quote :

"Things are supposed to be easy for you, as an individual. Things are not supposed to be easy for law enforcement or the government."

Quote :

"Things are supposed to be easy for you, as an individual. Things are not supposed to be easy for law enforcement or the government."

Quote :

"Things are supposed to be easy for you, as an individual. Things are not supposed to be easy for law enforcement or the government."

Quote :

"Things are supposed to be easy for you, as an individual. Things are not supposed to be easy for law enforcement or the government."

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 1:22:19 PM

^ them=us

this doesn't make anything less easy for me, as an individual.

This arguably makes things easier on me, in case someone ever murders my family or rapes my friends.

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 1:45:32 PM

hell, so would cameras in everyone's bedroom. let's do it!

but really, how will this make it easier for you? is it gonna undo the murder or the rape? is it going to bring someone back to life? Will it help fulfill your selfish desire for vengeance?

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 1:46:56 PM

haha are you kidding?

Are you arguing it's no big deal if we don't catch murderers and rapists?

5/16/2010 1:49:41 PM

hell, we want to catch em all. so let's put cameras in every bedroom! let's put tracking chips on every single person! we'll catch a LOT of criminals!

you are suggesting that we won't catch criminals and rapists if we don't do this. that's fucking absurd. I doubt there's much evidence that this would help in any way, shape, or form.

5/16/2010 2:10:18 PM

we already have tracking chips on every person, they're called cell phones.

And cheek swabbing people who commit felonies is clearly different than putting a camera (and monitoring it) in every bedroom.

And we'll catch criminals the same way we've been catching criminals. But if we could rule out anyone who has been convicted of a felony in one swoop, that certainly makes things easier for everyone.

The fact of the matter is that this is the future. Measuring DNA is not invasive, it can't be used for tracking. It is for all intents a simple biometric despite indy's idiotic assertions. I wouldn't be surprised if in another 50 years, they develop a way to sequence your DNA by shooting a laser at you. If this is going to be the future anyway, way may as well set up precedence for good practices with this data.

And it's not like this move doesn't clearly help everyone, while hurting no one. The least of a felon's problems are going to be that someone sticks a cotton swab in their mouth. The bigger issue is false positives, but that is why they should make sure that they an agency can't detain solely on DNA evidence.

5/16/2010 2:22:08 PM

Quote :

"And cheek swabbing people who commit felonies is clearly different than putting a camera (and monitoring it) in every bedroom."

if only it were for people who were proven to have committed a felony. This is simply for arrest.

Quote :

"But if we could rule out anyone who has been convicted of a felony in one swoop, that certainly makes things easier for everyone."

If only we had GPS chips implanted in people skulls, it would really make it easier. Cameras in every room would make it easier too!

5/16/2010 2:32:08 PM

^^ i think you're missing the point of this thread. convicted felons already have their DNA taken. I and many others don't have a problem with this. This law is trying to take the DNA of people who have only been arrested for a felony.

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2010 2:34:28 PM

Quote :

"If only we had GPS chips implanted in people skulls, it would really make it easier. Cameras in every room would make it easier too! "

That's not a logical rebuttal.

Are you against fingerprinting? ID cards? License registrations? Because these things all make things easier for law enforcement, so by your logic, they are the same as putting cameras in every bedroom and GPS chips in skulls.

5/16/2010 2:37:24 PM

well, licenses and IDs are for getting special privileges...

and, simply saying "it makes things easier for the cops" is not, also, a logical argument. Plenty of things make life easier for cops. that doesn't mean we should give cops carte blanche power to do whatever they want. Searching people without warrants would make things easier. Doesn't mean we should allow it.

5/16/2010 2:40:23 PM

apples and oranges comparison moron. just stop with the hyperbole.

^why did you bother with a response.

now that you've been educated about what we're talking about are you for or against people charged but not convicted of a felony getting their DNA taken?

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2010 2:40:54 PM

The irony of the arguments seen in this thread and the Arizona illegal immigrants thread is delicious, from both sides.

I fucking love The Soap Box.

5/16/2010 2:44:14 PM

Quote :

"apples and oranges comparison moron. just stop with the hyperbole. "

huh?

burro is the one throwing around the hyperbole.

Quote :

"and, simply saying "it makes things easier for the cops" is not, also, a logical argument. Plenty of things make life easier for cops. that doesn't mean we should give cops carte blanche power to do whatever they want. Searching people without warrants would make things easier. Doesn't mean we should allow it."

What should we allow then? You seem to be against anything that makes it easier for law enforcement, but I presume this isn't the case. So what types of things should be allowed for police to use? They should only use what police 100 years ago were allowed to use? 200? What is the threshold of technology that's too good for police to use?

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 2:49:04 PM

Wow. moron is actually defending this crap. I really hope, for his sake, that he's trolling.
It's simply amazing that people can actually support this. Just, wow.

5/16/2010 2:49:09 PM

If only there were a document that kind of gave a response to such questions, moron. Maybe a document that established the kind of government our nation has. One that says what the government can and can't do. Man, if only we had one of those...

5/16/2010 2:55:18 PM

When I was arrested, they took my fingerprints at the station. Who do I sue?

5/16/2010 2:58:30 PM

^^ haha

so what does this document say about DNA? Computers? the Internet? Fingerprint databases?

DNA evidence has most likely exonerated more innocent people too from the machinations of our imperfect justice system.

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 2:59:09 PM

you still haven't answered this moron.

Quote :

"now that you've been educated about what we're talking about are you for or against people charged but not convicted of a felony getting their DNA taken?"

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2010 3:00:42 PM

^ that seems like it would fall under the fifth amendment, but since they can force people to give fingerprints, there's probably some precedence to force people to get their cheek swabbed.

I would say in that case, a person should have the right to refuse.

5/16/2010 3:04:47 PM

It doesn't matter what the constitution says. Because they're the government. They wrote the damn thing, and they can do whatever they want. It's a hundred years too late to "fix" this. It's just us versus them from here on out.

5/16/2010 9:40:57 PM

But the constitution is a living document!

5/16/2010 10:00:54 PM