More DNA Samples, More Debate

[question everything]

SANTA ANA, Calif.—Law-enforcement agencies in many places routinely take DNA samples from people convicted of murder and other violent crimes. But here in Orange County, officials also are taking samples from people charged with minor offenses such as shoplifting and drug possession, in exchange for agreeing to dismiss the charges or as part of plea deals. The practice of taking the cheek-swab samples is voluntary, which partially sidesteps a national controversy over when law enforcement can require DNA samples. But it also has raised the ire of civil-rights advocates, who say the practice is coercive.

(snip)

Last year, an Orange County man submitted a DNA sample as part of a plea deal after he was arrested for drunken driving. Raul Moreno-Perez's sample was entered into the database, where it matched DNA found in connection with a rape case that had remained unsolved for more than 10 years. Mr. Moreno-Perez was charged with rape and kidnapping and is awaiting trial; his defense attorney didn't respond to a request for comment.

(snip)

Jennifer Friedman, a public defender in Los Angeles County, said she believes there is a "coercive element" at play in the way that Orange County prosecutors agree to drop charges in exchange for DNA. "There's a real fear that, 'If I don't give a sample, I am going to be investigated,' " Ms. Friedman said. "It's hard to convince someone to not take a dismissal in return for just giving a little saliva."

Debate has raged for years over whether law enforcement should be allowed to collect DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted of serious crimes. That question sharply divided the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year when it found in favor of the state of Maryland, which calls for DNA collection from people arrested and charged with violent crimes. A similar California law is being challenged before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In California, more than 1.4 million DNA profiles have been collected—far more than in any other state.

(snip)

The efforts are troubling to some defense lawyers and civil-liberties groups, who say DNA collection interferes with individual privacy. "By having DNA in this database, you become a potential suspect in any crime where DNA evidence is recovered," said Michael Risher, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing a group challenging California's DNA-collection law. Jacqueline Goodman, a defense attorney in Orange County, said the prospect of going to court is "frightening" to many of her clients. Some have professional licenses that they don't want to place in jeopardy. Others are undocumented immigrants and are worried that they could get in more serious trouble.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579059760205212256.html

(If you cannot open by clicking, copy and paste the title onto google)

[Thinkingabout]

1. WTH, does raping someone, robbing someone or killing someone interfere with their

Privacy, damn right it interferes with their privacy, when will ACLU stand up with the privacy rights of victims. There are battles which needs to be fought and others should be dropped.

[X_Digger]

2. The rights of the accused (those bearing the full force of the government) are critical.

Why do you think half of the bill of rights are most often applied to those in the justice system?

[Thinkingabout]

3. Yes I know criminals has the upper hand but on the subject of privacy rights should be

Extended to victims also. Would you think your right not to be raped is important also. The balance in the legal system does not tip to the victim, enough is enough. If you commit crimes justice would be served if punishment was given to the criminal.

[X_Digger]

4. My personal opinion is that DNA should only be recorded on conviction.

Not on arrest, and certainly not in exchange for dropping another charge. I know enough activists who have been arrested on a trumped up 'disturbing the peace' (aka, contempt of cop) but later had charges dropped to not trust such a distinction.

[Thinkingabout]

5. So, you are saying it is okay with you to be raped and only if they are able to convict

the guilty person they would be able to collect DNA? You know better than this, it doesn't make sense. DNA will be collected before convictions, this is usually some of the evidence used in a trial. What needs to happen is for the crime to stop and I doubt this will happen so DNA will continue to be collected. Why not give the victims a break once in a while, I would like to see the ACLU step up and help the victims also.

[X_Digger]

6. Expunge on acquittal or dropped charges.

The government has no business keeping DNA on people who have committed no crime or have been ruled not guilty.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Many times a rapist has raped before or will again. How are you going to stop the invasion

of privacy when a criminal invades your privacy and rapes you? Human rights should be extended to victims, far too many times justice tilts to the criminal rather than the victim. In other words, keep clean, don't do crimes and you just may not be arrested for crimes you may be associated with by DNA. If this is cruel then it is more cruel to have crime committed on one's self by a criminal, it invades our privacy to be raped, killed or robbed.

[X_Digger]

8. If you have nothing to hide, why worry? Is that really what you're saying?

And when the government's big creepy database of people who may or may not have been convicted of no crime gets used to identify protesters at another rally, is that cool with you, too?

No, implied government force should be limited via due process.

[Thinkingabout]

9. You are right, don't do the crime and you may not be expected to do the time.

It may be a creepy database of people but it sure won't be as creepy as criminals invading the privacy of innocent people just because the criminal wants to do so. Creepy, my oh my, do you think it is creepy to be a victim of crime?

[X_Digger]

10. If the database were only those who actually *had* committed crime, no problem.

But those acquitted or released without charge? That's where I have a problem.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Are you sure they have not committed anothrr crime? No you can not say this is true or will remain

True. What one needs to be aware of is not committing crimes and then whatever DNA has been collect will never be used to locate a person who has committed crimes.

[X_Digger]

12. We don't hold people in jail because they *might have* committed another crime.

We don't randomly search people's pockets because they *might have* stolen someone's wallet.

No, we require due process (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc) before taking these actions.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Hey, there isn't any reasoning here but I am glad there is a DNA database, I hope more

Criminals are located through whatever means, victims needs some help also, if ACLU is trying to be fair this is one fight they would avoid, they need to pick the battle on the side of victims.

[X_Digger]

14. 'Whatever means'?!? How about we torture suspects, surely that'd lead to more convictions! n/t

[Thinkingabout]

15. You must be afraid of your DNA being associated with crimes. What if the criminal tortures

someone before, during and after crimes, guess this is okay with you and the ACLU, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have listened to some of the causes of ACLU in the past but I am doubting their causes now.

[X_Digger]

16. The ACLU is consistent. Rights are for all, not just those we agree with / like.

They defend the right to free speech- even when it's Nazis in Illinois. They defend the right to privacy, even when it's a person suspected of being a serial killer. They defend the right to religious freedom, even when it's a convicted killer on death row.

It's called sticking to one's principles.

[flowerbells]

17. I agree

with X-Digger that DNA should only be taken on conviction of a violent crime