16
   

Justice Scalia and Supreme Court's Ruling on DNA

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 04:54 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That's because you have a cartoonish impression of Scalia

If Scalia's impression is cartoonish it's the result of his doing.

He's parroting hypocritical partisan lines.

Aha. That must be why Scalia was the fifth vote in the Supreme Court's decision that flag-burning is a First-Amendment right, why he consistently took a firm stand for the Sixth-Amendment right of the accused to confront their accusers in court, and why he dissented to the left of a (moderately) liberal majority on the habeas corpus rights of US citizens in the war on terrorism.

Seriously though: Although I don't agree with Finn d'Abuzz often, I do agree with him on Scalia and his detractors. Scalia has his principles of judging. He doesn't always practice what these principles preach, but he practices them consistently enough and impartially enough to disappoint his fellow conservatives from time to time. Anyone surprised by this dissent probably is holding a cartoonish view of Scalia.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 06:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
As has been noted by engineer, the government can do a lot more with a DNA sample than with a fingerprint.
Thats a bit comical . Science doesnt itself determine what the uses for a discovery are. One technology stands on the shoulders of another previous one. The use of DNA in forensics required several pieces of lab equipment to bahe been developed . Such were done in the early 1990's and the tool stands with us having to limit its use.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 06:45 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Maryland had arrested King for crime Y, and then ran his DNA against the database entries for crime W, crime Z
And as I repeat, his MO was of a nature that they compared his DNA to crimes where
1.other DNA was available that fit his MO

2. The USSC agreeat was a valid search under the 4th


Im happy with the decision.
(As soon as anyone can have an MO for commission of crimes, Im thinking that we MUST weigh the rights of victims at least as evenly with the rights we bestow upon the accused.)
Lets see how this one lives.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 06:53 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Aha.


The majority feel that the members of the supreme court only tow the line of their nominating president. As weve see, with the exception of Thomas, most ALL of the justices have left the playground, even Roberts.
These are decisions of law in which none of us herehave any backgrounds. Our opinions are like our votes, mine cancels yours. In this "election" my side came up.

Sorry, maybe next time
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 09:13 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

..." If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

That argument justifies any arbitrary invasion of citizens' lives, including mind reading machines. Nothing to hide = nothing to fear. Want to question me in a back room for hours about my private opinions and feelings? Nothing to hide = nothing to fear.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 09:31 pm
@farmerman,
How is it that with all your "civics classes" y'all are so often schooled in things American by others?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:51 pm
@Miller,
Welcome to Brave New World. Didn't you have to read it in high school?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 05:47 pm
@Brandon9000,
Well said, Brandon.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 05:53 pm
@Thomas,
Noone would use that argument but, for considerations,DNa has the very power to remove guilty verdicts as much as it has to capture the real perps. AND, its accomplished by pretty much the same process.
(Weve seen in Texas and Louisiana where innocent folks wouldnt be allowed to avail DNA evidence which would acquit them).
JUST A THOUGHT.

Ive seen many arguments this weekend and while most are beating the drum against the USSC decision, several wise pundits have spoken out in its favor.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 06:18 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Noone would use that argument but, for considerations,DNa has the very power to remove guilty verdicts as much as it has to capture the real perps.

False analogy. If you donate a DNA sample so the Innocence Project can get your case re-opened, you have consented to the search and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

Farmerman wrote:
JUST A THOUGHT.

Yelling may make your arguments louder, but it won't make them more coherent.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 09:42 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
AND, its accomplished by pretty much the same process.
(Weve seen in Texas and Louisiana where innocent folks wouldnt be allowed to avail DNA evidence which would acquit them).


That's hardly the same process. Cops and prosecutors often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to look at new evidence. You've just said so yourself, above.

What kind of twisted soul/souls would want to prevent innocent people from being freed?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 05:57 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Yelling may make your arguments louder, but it won't make them more coherent
Youre trying to adapt a higher platform of morality on me? Im the master of the higher platform scam. I just thought Id remind the readers.


Quote:
alse analogy. If you donate a DNA sample so the Innocence Project can get your case re-opened,
In several states the admission of "new evidence" has no bearing in law. Youre just watching too much TV and believing it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 04:30 pm
@farmerman,
Not everything is about science and scientists FM.

If no problem at with the development of uses for DNA, and certainly not it's forensic use in criminal investigation.

There is nothing, "scientific" however about the state taking a DNA sample of everyone who is arrested. That's governmental policy.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 02:24 pm
I found this article very interesting....
Quote:

The New York Times
June 12, 2013

Police Agencies Are Assembling Records of DNA

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

Slowly, and largely under the radar, a growing number of local law enforcement agencies across the country have moved into what had previously been the domain of the F.B.I. and state crime labs — amassing their own DNA databases of potential suspects, some collected with the donors’ knowledge, and some without it.

And that trend — coming at a time of heightened privacy concerns after recent revelations of secret federal surveillance of telephone calls and Internet traffic — is expected only to accelerate after the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding a Maryland statute allowing the authorities to collect DNA samples from those arrested for serious crimes.

These local databases operate under their own rules, providing the police much more leeway than state and federal regulations. And the police sometimes collect samples from far more than those convicted of or arrested for serious offenses — in some cases, innocent victims of crimes who do not necessarily realize their DNA will be saved for future searches.

New York City has amassed a database with the profiles of 11,000 crime suspects. In Orange County, Calif., the district attorney’s office has 90,000 profiles, many obtained from low-level defendants who give DNA as part of a plea bargain or in return for having the charges against them dropped. In Central Florida, several law enforcement agencies have pooled their DNA databases. A Baltimore database contains DNA from more than 3,000 homicide victims.

These law enforcement agencies are no longer content to rely solely on the highly regulated network of state and federal DNA databases, which have been more than two decades in the making and represent one of the most significant developments in the history of law enforcement in this country.

The reasons vary. Some police chiefs are frustrated with the time it can take for state crime labs to test evidence and enter DNA profiles into the existing databases. Others want to compile DNA profiles from suspects or low-level offenders long before their DNA might be captured by the state or national databases, which typically require conviction or arrest.

“Unfortunately, what goes into the national database are mostly reference swabs of people who are going to prison,” said Jay Whitt of the company DNA:SI Labs, which sells DNA testing and database services to police departments. “They’re not the ones we’re dealing with day in day out, the ones still on the street just slipping under the radar.”

The rise in these local databases has aroused concerns among some critics, worried about both the lax rules governing them and the privacy issues they raise.

“We have been warning law enforcement that when public attention began to focus on these rogue, unregulated databases, people would be disturbed,” said Barry Scheck, a co-director of the Innocence Project, which seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted prisoners. “Law enforcement has just gone ahead and started collecting DNA samples from suspects in an unregulated fashion.”

For their part, law enforcement officials say that the crime-solving benefits of local databases are dramatic.

“Our take is that it’s good for law enforcement and good for the community,” said Doug Muldoon, police chief of Palm Bay, a city of about 100,000 in Central Florida, about its database, which has produced 1,000 matches. He said his officers could now use DNA to address the crime conditions “in our community — property crimes and burglaries.” State crime labs can take months to analyze evidence from low-level felonies like that, he said.

As local authorities devise their own policies, they are increasingly taking DNA from people on the mere suspicion of a crime, long before any arrest, and holding on to it regardless of the outcome. Often detectives get DNA samples simply by asking suspects for them.

Other times, investigators take DNA surreptitiously, from discarded trash. Or the DNA might originate from a warrant issued in a specific case, authorizing the authorities to compare it against crime scene evidence — with the resulting profile then stored in a database for future use.

In some jurisdictions, it is not only suspects whose DNA goes into the database, but occasionally victims, too.

“If an officer goes to your house on a burglary, they will swab a door handle and then they will ask, ‘Can we get a sample from the homeowner so we can eliminate them as the source?’ ” Chief Muldoon said. “They say, ‘Sure.’ ”

The homeowner’s sample goes into the database, too, Chief Muldoon said. In many jurisdictions, so would samples from others even briefly considered potential suspects.

“That’s so profoundly disturbing — that you would give DNA to the police to clear yourself and then once cleared, the police use it to investigate you for other crimes, and retain it indefinitely,” said Stephen B. Mercer, the chief attorney of the forensics division of the Maryland public defender’s office and one of the lawyers involved in the case that resulted in the recent Supreme Court decision on DNA. “If that doesn’t strike at a core value of privacy, I don’t know what does.”

The Supreme Court’s decision last week, in Maryland v. King, was its first to squarely address DNA collection and databanking. While that decision said nothing explicit about the authority of local law enforcement to keep DNA databases, it could well encourage local jurisdictions to push ahead, several experts said.

“In light of the Supreme Court decision, more and more organizations are going to be doing this,” said Frederick Harran, the public safety director in Bensalem Township, a Philadelphia suburb that is aggressively building its own DNA database.

The court’s decision readily accepted the utility of DNA collection as a routine station house booking procedure, comparing it to fingerprinting.

“King is a green light,” said Erin E. Murphy, a New York University law professor who has written about DNA databases and DNA profiling. “It’s a ringing endorsement of DNA testing, and many law enforcement agencies would see this as a dramatic opportunity to expand DNA collection.”

It is not clear how many local jurisdictions maintain DNA databases. DNA SI Labs provides databanks for nine police departments, including those in Bensalem and Palm Bay, Mr. Whitt said, and has contracts with a dozen other departments to build more.

Palm Bay shares its database of 15,000 profiles with nearby departments, creating a regional pool. It is more common for prosecutors, the police and local crime labs to maintain their own DNA data, typically from suspects, which may be ineligible for upload to the national database.

Few states have laws regarding local DNA databases. Alaska prohibits them. California and Hawaii are explicit in not precluding them. In many states, including New York, the law is silent on the issue. And there is little consensus about what DNA retention policies are appropriate at the local level.

“There really are no rules as to what you can specifically keep,” said Jill Spriggs, who runs the Sacramento district attorney’s crime lab. “The forensic community is all over the board.”

The issues raised by these local databases include what type of DNA testing should be permitted. In Denver, which keeps a local database, the district attorney, Mitchell R. Morrissey, is a leading proponent of familial DNA searching. The technique uses special software not to identify matches, but for clues as to whether a relative of a person whose DNA is on file may be the source of crime scene DNA.

Because local databases operate without the stricter rules governing federal and local ones, local authorities have been able to set the pace for how DNA is collected and used in criminal investigations. That pace, experts say, could accelerate if rapid DNA testing devices capable of quickly developing DNA profiles from samples are deployed in station houses.

The ability to very quickly generate DNA profiles, experts say, could provide a greater incentive for local authorities to build and maintain their own database.

Mentioned in last week’s Supreme Court opinion, such technology is not yet generally in the hands of law enforcement, although the Palm Bay Police Department is field testing one such device.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/police-agencies-are-assembling-records-of-dna.html?ref=us

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 03:33 pm
@firefly,
we are about at the same place in history that e were bfore the APHIS databases were taken as THE central repository of prints.

Also, the Quality Control and Quality Assurance programs are still a few years away from a universal equivalence that we now have in "Good LAb Practice" requirements
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 03:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Findings in science ,mostly precede societal rules by which we adopt them for use.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 04:14 pm
@farmerman,
Too much boinking your sheep has turned you into one of 'em, Farmer.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 02:59 pm
@farmerman,
Yes of course.

I'm getting the feeling that you are defending science here. Not necessary.

We should be able to establish proper public policy concerning any discovery/advancement made by scientists.

I'm not at all for putting a governor on science and technological development, except to the extent that there should be strictly enforced and highly redundant safety standards when scientists are delving into matters that can have a cataclysmic impact on society.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 03:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
no, Im not. Im agreeing with the assertion (and now court finding of a majority of the USSC) that this procedure is not a violation of our 4th amendment rights where the MO of the accused fits known cases where DNA is AVAILABLE
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jun, 2013 03:42 pm
@farmerman,
Then the fact that the science preceded the policy is totally irrelevant.
 

Related Topics

DNA inheritance - Question by Pauline Rendall
Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Family Tree Test (changes human history?) - Discussion by edgarblythe
Can babies be a crime scene? - Question by boomerang
It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life - Discussion by edgarblythe
native american dna - Question by hoop2live3
Human ancestry for idiots - Discussion by Gelisgesti
How the Human Got His Thumbs - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2024 at 06:51:52