Can babies be a crime scene?

Forums: Legal, Maryland V King, Privacy, Dna, Scotus
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've been thinking a bit about the Maryland v. King decision by SCOTUS.

That decision said it was okay for the police to take a DNA sample from everyone they arrest, like they do with fingerprints.

I'm still unsure how I feel about it.

And then today I came across this: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/06/07/us/07reuters-usa-mississippi-babies.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

Quote:

Mississippi will require doctors to collect umbilical cord blood from babies born to some young mothers, under a new law intended to identify statutory rapists and reduce the state's rate of teenage pregnancy, the highest in the country.

.......

Samples will be stored at the state medical examiner's office for testing in the event that police believe the girl was the victim of statutory rape. But they will not automatically be entered into the state's criminal DNA database.

........

Governor Phil Bryant said, "As governor, I am serious about confronting and reducing teen pregnancy in Mississippi. Unfortunately, part of this epidemic is driven by sexual offenders who prey on young girls. This measure provides law enforcement with another tool to help identify these men and bring them to justice."

.......

"The argument is that the DNA is abandoned or about to be abandoned as medical waste, and a person doesn't have constitutional privacy over trash,"

Are babies now a crime scene?

Is this Constitutional?

It all seems very much like a fishing expedition to me: arrest someone for something, get their DNA, see what else they might have been up to over the years.

And if you can't get their DNA, get their kid's DNA.

What do you think about all of this?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 7,974 • Replies: 15

No top replies

@boomerang,

They were talking about this on NPR the other day. If I recall the discussion correctly, it seemed that the hidden purpose of the law is to identify a father so that the state could recoup some of the costs associated with providing services for the baby.

The law is almost useless for the expressed purpose of identifying statutory rapists, because the cord blood doesn't show in which county the offense occurred, which is necessary for prosecution.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Also, I think another purpose for laws like this is to boost certain businesses.

I think it was Florida that implemented mandatory drug testing for people on social services. They spent millions, and prevented something like $50,000 worth of services.

Now Mississippi is going to be spending a bunch of money on DNA tests that nobody will ever look at.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Interesting.

So why is it just directed at young mothers? Older women get services from the state too.

0 Replies

Hey . . . what are you, some kind of commie ? ! ? ! ? Those businesses, run by fine, upstanding businessmen, pillars of the community, are in my district!

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I think the Florida thing was a "follow the money" scam whereby certain lawmakers had big investments in the drug testing company.

Maybe that's what is happening here.

But again -- why just young mothers.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

I haven't read the decision closely but my impression from news articles was that this wouldn't be all arrests, but those re Serious Crimes (however those are defined). I'm not sure what I think yet re all this, still reading. Lean toward "what?"

And from others' comments, it seems that there's a probable cause element (or isn't, as posters argued) in the case the court reviewed.

If I remember, in the thread on this, Farmerman also had some strong practical reasons not to see this develop, as there is already a massive backlog to get actual crime scene dna parsed, much less take samples from all those arrested for serious crimes.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

But again -- why just young mothers.

To intimidate girls into not having sex?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Yeah. Like that's gonna work.

Sincerely,

The girl who was young once

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

The way I read it, osso, is that a DNA sample would be taken as part of the whole booking thing -- like fingerprints are.

Like if you were stopped on the street and refused to be searched you could be arrested and your DNA be taken.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Yeah, but they keep trying it.

"Let's only teach abstinence!"

"Let's outlaw abortion!"

"Let's scare 'em about STDs!"

God forbid that they get taught "use a condom to prevent STDs and use the Pill to prevent pregnancy."

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

The German parliament just passed a law, allowing women going through (unwanted) pregnancies to give birth in hospital under a false name. (Children are still be able to learn their mother's identity after turning 16.)

1 Reply

@boomerang,

I have to read up..

0 Replies

@boomerang,

I think that it is a bunch of bs considering I myself have a kid with a girl that is that same age as me but at the time her and I were 15 when our son was born. I know for damn sure I didn't rape her. I guarantee there's other teen pregnancies that are like that.

Can babies be a crime scene?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know