|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
06-03-2013, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
people bring up fingerprinting as a comparison, but is it a valid comparison? is an arrest really enough to warrant dna collection? 
|
|
#2
06-03-2013, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#3
06-03-2013, 09:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938) When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets. Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680)
|
|
#4
06-03-2013, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
06-03-2013, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...gerprints.html
found that, in a search i just did (after that great hockey game, of course) from '05. as for fingerprints and me being ok with them--i'm not sure when they started using and filing them, but probably before my time. guess it's something i never thought about, til now. dna is supposed to be removed if there's no charges, or they're exonerated-as the article above says fingerprints are supposed to be...but like the above says, that doesn't always happen. i feel like this is just a more invasive way of search/seizure. i guess i also didn't realize til reading about the ruling that states collected dna at arrest, not conviction (arkansas collects at conviction).
|
|
#6
06-03-2013, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1924 - The U.S. Congress acts to establish the Identification Division of the F.B.I. The National Bureau and Leavenworth are consolidated to form the basis of the F.B.I. fingerprint repository. By 1946, the F.B.I. had processed 100 million fingerprint cards; that number doubles by 1971.
yeah, like i thought, a little before my time! 
|
|
#7
06-04-2013, 07:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://news.yahoo.com/police-now-col...192600381.html
Rather than serving as a tool to verify someone's identity, they argue that it's really a backdoor to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches." Police had no reason to suspect King had been involved in that rape, yet they used his arrest and DNA to charge him for an unrelated crime. The case did not break on the usual ideological lines. In a withering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by three liberals on the bench, said it "taxes the credulity of the credulous" to suggest DNA testing is really about determining someone's identity: The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime. [SCOTUSBlog] The court did not rule on specific limits for conducting pre-conviction sampling, which is another major point of contention. The court said it can only be done in the case of "serious" crimes. Yet that term is subjective, a point Scalia lambasted while arguing that the majority had "disguise[d] the vast (and scary) scope of its holding by promising a limitation it cannot deliver." "Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," he said.
|
Hybrid Mode
