DNA swabbing by police passes Supreme Court

[Rukentuts]

Obviously you cannot get convicted if the key piece of evidence has only 1/7000 chance of being reliable. The full DNA test on the other hand is like 99,999% accurate.

Or 1/<More Humans Than Have Ever Existed> chance of duplication.

Unless you have an identical twin, of course.

[syn1k]

Kinda hard to keep a suspect with evidence easily thrown out in court.

They could *maybe* use it towards probably cause under the right circumstance, but not much more.

they dont need to keep them. if they get pulled out of work and arrested for rape or murder because their dna matches they just lost their job/friends/family. innocent till proven guilty only works for actual sentencing not society.

[Kaleredar]

are you saying the police wont use that "evidence" to go after those 50 people. most likely ruining their lives even if they cant get a conviction.

First:

"Most likely ruining their lives?"

Saying "MOST LIKELY" does not actually make something likely to happen.

Second:

Police don't convict people over nothing but a fingerprint at a crime scene. Why would they suddenly start with DNA? (and ONLY DNA, as you seem to imply they'd rely solely on)

[Rukentuts]

they dont need to keep them. if they get pulled out of work and arrested for rape or murder because their dna matches they just lost their job/friends/family. innocent till proven guilty only works for actual sentencing not society.

Um...the DNA is taken at time of arrest as per this SCOTUS case.

[syn1k]

Um...the DNA is taken at time of arrest as per this SCOTUS case.

for now. in the future who is to say they wont make it mandatory.

[Rukentuts]

for now. in the future who is to say they wont make it mandatory.

I'm not entertaining slippery-slope "I want to conjure a dystopian future" ramblings tonight. Not to mention such an event would have it's own case with its own special ruling.

[syn1k]

I'm not entertaining slippery-slope "I want to conjure a dystopian future" ramblings tonight. Not to mention such an event would have it's own case with its own special ruling.

or it could just all of the sudden get passed like the patriot act. even in the current state, anyone that is arrested for anything(dui, public disturbance, public intoxication, etc) is now a murder suspect.

[Sunseeker]

for now. in the future who is to say they wont make it mandatory.

So what if they do? You're fingerprinted as a baby and have no choice in the matter. It's the same thing just not as specific to you as DNA.

[Anakso]

I support this, don't see how it's much different to fingerprinting someone. It's just one way they can prove your identity.

[Thetruth1400]

Criminals should be treated like criminals. A minor swab on the cheek is far from invasive when you think of all the benefits of it. From now on, a criminal that has committed a crime will be able to be identified not only by fingerprints, which are easy to wipe away, but by any fragment of DNA they leave at the scene. A hell of a lot more rape cases will be solved in the least, keeping many people from getting raped by repeat offenders.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be fingerprinted and DNA identified at birth. That way, no crime goes unpunished by the proper person. For the average non criminal, there's no reason to oppose it, because it wouldn't matter. So what that your DNA and fingerprints are on record? If you're not going to commit a crime, it shouldn't matter. Hell, every teacher in America is fingerprinted in case something happens. Why not the average citizen?

[syn1k]

So what if they do? You're fingerprinted as a baby and have no choice in the matter. It's the same thing just not as specific to you as DNA.

baby fingerprints dont go into afis and are hard to compare to adult finger prints they(and footprints) are mostly for id purposes in the hospital to prevent baby mix ups. finger prints are also far more accurate than the quick dna profile. approx 45k people in the us share your dna profile.

the odds of your finger print being in a place you havent been are much smaller than your dna profile. if they used a more exact dna test then you can get that down to almost 100% similar to finger prints and there wouldnt be any problem with mix ups.

[Lagwin]

i don't see why any honest person would have a problem with this.
If you don't commit crimes then it does not effect you, if you get arrested for something and they do a mouth swab you don't have anything to worry about unless you have been doing something untoward.
the UK have been doing this for a while and i believe that after a set amount of years.

[Taurenburger]

Hmm. I don't really see it as a problem. A cheekswab is not really that much more invasive than a fingerprint.

Also, I've never been arrested and don't plan to be. Therefore, this issue won't affect me afaik.

[Daerio]

i don't see why any honest person would have a problem with this.
If you don't commit crimes then it does not effect you, if you get arrested for something and they do a mouth swab you don't have anything to worry about unless you have been doing something untoward.
the UK have been doing this for a while and i believe that after a set amount of years.

This is the same argument as allowing the police to search your home without a warrant (at least, in the US) - nothing to hide, etc etc.

[Romeo83x]

The "get arrested" part is pretty much negligible. If police wants, they can book you for some dumb ass trumped up charge, swab your cheek and then release you 30 minutes later and there's nothing you can do.

[Buckwald]

Good little commentary on the situation.

[Elegiac]

This is the same argument as allowing the police to search your home without a warrant (at least, in the US) - nothing to hide, etc etc.

You've been proven wrong several times already.

[Masark]

Or 1/<More Humans Than Have Ever Existed> chance of duplication.

Unless you have an identical twin, of course.

Have you seen what happens when you run the CODIS database against itself? You get quite a few matches.