hmm i agree with the measure that suggests they should only take a sample if a person is CHARGED with the crime...


i have a few questions:


where will the samples be taken?

by whom?

and what will be done with them one they are taken? like, where will they be sent? how long will they be stored?

how much will this cost us?

They should only be taken if convicted, IMO. DNA can be taken from something as non-intrusive as mouth swabs, by anybody in the justice system. Just rub a sterile Q Tip like thingy on the inside of the cheeks. They need only be stored until the DNA sequence is coded and placed into a database, like fingerprints. Just let them air dry and they can be stored without refrigeration. I can't speak to cost.

On the fence on this one--seems like an invasion of privacy unless they are convicted...

It seems like an invasion of privacy because it IS an invasion of privacy. Something like that should only be done when a person is CONVICTED or a violent crime.

Only when convicted.

Just give this commie state some time and they'll be collecting samples at traffic stops.

That's ridiculous. Do they take your fingerprints for traffic stops yet?

Convicted or not, unless they prove they have a definite NEED to take your bodily parts and inspect your DNA they should not be allowed to engage in such a siezure. IMO it's a search and siezure like any other and should only be allowed upon showing sufficient just cause.

I can see them one day selling your DNA results to the highest bidder so that you can be discriminated against when it comes to being hired for a job or buying life or health insurance if you have any inheritable predispositions to disease for example. Even if the State doesn't sell your data, somebody is sure to hack their database one day and then they will sell off your information. Better that the State doesn't collect such sensitive private infomation without a demonstrated need, and preferably a warrant.

Is it?

Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt

Hey, why the heck not, you all got something to hide?

We, your United States Military, are required to give DNA, take the Anthrax series of shots as well as many other things. It has not killed us. Yes, as I've said it is an all volunteer Military, so we do consent, so don't bother with that stuff. Most Civilians have no idea.

It won't hurt you, and could be used to identify you in case of your untimely demise.

Those encounters sound like the drivers gave consent. A cop can ask you for any type of search/seizure, but without PC, you don't have to submit. When they take it without consent or PC, we'll talk. That link sounds like good police work and stupid drivers to me.

I can see the day coming, that we have that talk.

Yep, very stupid drivers.

Would you like to be identified as a "person of interest" in a serial murder investigation who refused to voluntarily give a DNA sample? I think that would qualify as stupid.

Freely giving them your DNA after they consider you a person of interest is much dumber. If they want it, make them prove to a judge why they need it.

And if I ever get a whiff that I'm a "person of interest" in any criminal investigation, the police will be contacting nobody but my attorney until they have enough to arrest me.

I can see the pluses and minuses. Currently, my daughter was listening to the report of the breach in confidentiality at a hospital involving a celeb. Many viewed the charts or discussed items from the case. So much for HIPPA safeguards. Makes me nervous that any information is available at a price. Some people are crass and will sell out anyone.

Then again, I really support law enforcement and can see the benefit of a DNA registry for convicted criminals............I can not remember, but I think those convicted of violent child sex crimes have their DNA in a registry after conviction.

I am undecided or perplexed. Leaning towards ok for those convicted of serious/applicable crimes. Tough one though.



Oh my, I see your point. I definitely would not want to be the only one.
Perhaps a warrant would be a safeguard or half way measure to get it done, but still maintain some rights. Guess we need lawyers on speed dial.

It started out as "arrested" and is moving to "charged". If they wait till "convicted" they are usually locked up. A good data bank of people "charged" with violence would be a good thing. Too many violent criminals keep moving around getting "charged" when they should/would be convicted if there was evidence. I say swab em!

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

Seriously, I can hardly believe you would seriously say that. It's the typical foolish response we always hear when Americans' most basic rights are being violated.

Don't like the government listening to all of your telephone calls or reading your mail? Then surely you must be trying to hide something.

Don't want to let them take a DNA sample on a whim? You must be guilty of something.

In the Orlando story I see them using the label "person of interest". A term without a clear legal meaning by the way and which can thus be used a the whim of the local gestapo.

What's next? Body cavity searches for jaywalkers? Ohh sounds like fun!

It's this same mindset that assumes that everyone who actually dares to demand their legal rights, for example asking police not to enter their home without a search warrant - is automatically assumed to be guilty of something.

As for the probable cause angle: I'm pretty sure the authorities who are using it have been saying PC doesn't apply to DNA testing. The courts haven't ruled on it yet, or at least it's not really considered settled. That's why you see so many of these campaigns being done, and lame ill-defined labels such as "person of interest" being used.

Excellent BMIC I agree with all of that. It does seem that when people refuse something they are assumed to be guilty and I don't think that is fair. I don't like when people try to talk me into getting/giving/buying/selling anything. I don't even like those people at the mall that want to "ask me a question" then grab my hand and start rubbing crap on my fingernails.

I agree.

Well thank goodness a new law has been signed which makes this whole thing a little bit less worrisome.

Bush just signed the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act into law.



Included, thanks in part to pro-family organizations' support, are protections for the unborn, so that one cannot be forced by their health insurance to abort their baby if found to have a genetic disorder. Apparently some have tried to do that, or at least to deny health coverage for babies that the parents' chose not to murder.

Here's a question for you, BMIC, and it may require it's own thread. Which birth defects are we talking about? Something easily corrected and inexpensive, like celiac disease? Or something a bit more expensive and complicated, such as thalessemia? Or does it refer to defects such as downs syndrome or fragile x syndrome, which can be debilitating in every way and cost the family and the community all kinds of resources, not only money? And when the baby with fragile x comes into the world and starts going to school, who pays for all the help he needs? What if his family lives in an area where no special help is available? (yes......it happens, and those children take up enough of a teacher's time to rob the rest of the class of an education, in some cases) Or, what if the birth defect is one that would lead to a stillbirth?

For example like my best friend, whose unborn baby was diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and their OB had the gall to suggest they should consider an abortion. They got a new doctor, immediately!

Their Down's Syndrome daughter is now 20 years old and has been a joy to them and many others.

Or maybe my adopted sister who is in her mid 30s and is deaf and profoundly retarded with cerebral palsy and a mental age of about 2-3, who would have been institutionalized for life if my parents had not adopted her, whom I just helped to move in with my sister and her family since my mom died and she is a bit to much for dad to manage on his own.

She requires care, sure, but is a joy to her family and we love her dearly. I'm sure there are certain ignorant liberals who would like to have her put to death rather than pay her medical assistance payments. I and my family would stand tall in their path, protecting our sister and others like her from what some have rightly called the culture of death.

Or maybe you want to talk about Helen Keller and the impact that she has had on the lives of thousands and whose legacy survives to this day?

I am infuriated by those who think that euthansia of those who are less "fit" than their nazi dream children is even worthy of the slightest serious consideration. You are talking about killing babies who could bless the lives of many others and enrich our society in general.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a well-known member of the eugenics movement whose most infamous advocate was Adolph Hitler. The abortion industry of today still proudly waves that very same banner.

No need to get defensive, BMIC. Those were just questions. And believe it or not, there are more sides to the answers than the ones you cited. Most of the people I know who have discovered serious, hereditary birth defects in their families have opted to forgo either getting pregnant or getting anyone pregnant in the first place. The whole reality of dealing with certain hereditary problems can be very, very serious........and without lots of support, it can lead to a life of abuse for the person directly affected, and to many other "living problems" for their families. It is not all the sunshine and joy you seem to think it is. And........there is no such thing as a nazi dream child. Only in dreams.

I was not getting defensive, I was giving real life examples and pointing out the underlying legacy of pure evil in your suggestion.

Excuse me for making a convincing argument that you cannot adequately refute, but I am not getting anything. I am just being right and you apparently don't like it.

I made no suggestions, evil or otherwise. I simply asked questions and cited decisions made by others to deal with related problems. You can call yourself right if you want to, but when was the last time you were personally responsible for, not one, but three children with hereditary birth defects that tax everyone from immediate caretakers to teachers to medical professionals to the entire community? Can you really speak from experience on this matter? Or are you running your yap with pre-recorded, one size fits all, innane political jargon?

BTW......when I make an evil suggestion, it will either involve a condem or a cauldron..................................

In any event the good news is that the eugenicists cannot legally try to force anyone to abort their babies just because it has a genetic "defect".

Nobody has the right to make that decision for the parents.

I find all talk using the cost and inconvenience etc. as an argument for killing an unborn baby to be offensive, but gee, considering that I believe the unborn to be human beings, that's not much of a surprise now, is it? Excuse me for having internally-consistent beliefs and opinions.

Nope. No one should force an abortion on anyone. Once again, when we start interferring with one person's basic rights, everyone else's rights are also in danger.

And of course more relevant this thread, the new law also means your employer cannot discriminate against you based on some random DNA test by an overzealous prosecutor revealing that you're at special risk for developing any sort of disease that may have a genetic basis.

Your employer cannot discriminate against you for those reasons, anyway. In fact, your employer cannot even "discriminate" against you for not showing up for work or for ineffective and inadequate job performance.

Maryland is an "employment at will" state. Your employer can discriminate against you for any reason they like except for those few things which are protected by law. In fact that's the way it works in most states. So a law protecting against discrimination for illnesses you haven't even come down with yet but are simply at increased risk for based on your genes was in fact necessary.

Anything you say, BMIC. Just consider one thing, though. Employers everywhere for centuries have discriminated against women because we have an "increased risk" of getting pregnant. And yours truly has successfully forced more than one cocky Maryland employer to back down with his/her sh*t over it. Yes; I once lived in Maryland. For many years, as a matter of fact. Governer Mandel (back when I was little.....yes, I am OLD) basically laid down the law about Maryland and it's "at will" crap when it comes to physical conditions, as did Clinton's law protecting maternity leave and also IDEA, protecting Americans with disabilities. And........the results of private lawsuits concerning discrimination also have effects on how the law in interpreted and applied. No; Maryland employers cannot simply get away with anything they please.

Unfortunately, Siriun, most of the time they can.

If your are against abortion in all cases, then I can see why cost of living doesn't make a difference to you. I'd rather not say my opinion on the abortion issue. I'll say all that medical care is expensive, and I would never choose to have to deal with that, if I had a choice.

I never seemed to be able to get away with firing people who didn't show up for work back when I lived in Maryland. Geez.......one person had to actually sell dope at the workplace before I could get rid of him. And later on when I got pregnant and had to care for my kids, I was, indeed, able to invoke federal law in a couple of cases.

Was the reason you couldn't get rid of people, more a case of company policy rather than MD laws?

It was probably both, Udmas. One thing I do know is this; if a lawsuit concerning a job loss over a certain behavior was won by the ex-employee, we always had to be very careful about firing anyone else in the future for the same misdeed. The results of civil lawsuits generally serve to amend civil law until voted upon by the general assembly. I simply never ceased to be amazed that I had to keep people who did all kinds of unprofessional things that I would never have expected to get away with. Even in Maryland.

Yes women are a protected class, as are many others. White male Christians like yours truly are SOL, however loudly we complain about reverse dscrimination.

Within a decade or so they say we'll be in the minority, however, and maybe then we can lobby for protected status too.

Do you really believe that or are you exaggerating to make a point? I ask because I have this discussion with a guy at work and he has the same opinion as you. I understand the demographics in this country are changing, but there's still a whole lot of you guys around.

Of course it's not that the cost of living doesn't make any difference to me in general but I know you didn't intend to insinuate that. It's that saving a human life, preventing murder trumps financial inconvenience. When you view it as a living human baby, talk of killing it due to cost or inconvenience is just plain ludicrous.

SMAN I was totally serious. I have heard on a number of occasions that particularly with the combined influx of legal and illegal immigrants, whites will soon be a minority racial group. I believe Hispanics are projected to be the new majority. Don't remember how many years they have been saying, but that's what I have heard.

Supposedly according to the U.S. Census four states and the District of Columbia are already “majority-minority.” Hawaii (75%), followed by the District of Columbia (68%), New Mexico (57%), California (57%), and Texas (52%) (U.S. Census, 2007).

I did some searching and while it seems the concensus is that it will take more like several decades, the trends are powerfully in that direction.

Maybe BMIC IS the guy you work with, Sman! White males of any religion are also the happiest people on the planet. And white male Pagans might have some of the same issues and complaints that BMIC has. My brother was a white male athiest, and had his share of difficulty, too.

Maybe I'm your brother.

Maybe. I guess that would mean I should be nice.

Oops, yes I didn't mean it like that. Sorry, I didn't reread before posting

The classic, most politically correct group against which discrimination is considered acceptable these days is the WASP male. However, in consideration of the fact that these days there's no real difference between Catholics and Protestants on that point, and since most whites don't need the "Anglo-Saxon" to figure out what they are, I said white male Christians.

Atheists and Pagans are at least somewhat favored by the PC crowd over Christians, so while their white males they may be targets of politically correct sexism and racism, when they are targeted for their religion, it's usually frowned upon. Maybe not as much so as when Muslims are the targets for example, but there's still generally a protective attitude towards atheists and pagans that Christians do not get from the mainstream PC culture.

I don't know, B. Atheists may be protected, but they come in dead last of potential presidential candidates, so there is still some big hate out there. Atheists may be the last group it's OK to hate on.



I know the topic of the poll is a bit of a non sequitur, but it fits in the with atheist discussion.

How old is McCain?

Old enough to qualify to run for President.

He's 71.

And, BTW, his mother is still alive at age 92.

FYI:


John McCain Biography (1936 - )

in full John Sidney McCain III

QUICK FACTS
Born: August 29, 1936 (Panama Canal Zone)
Lives in: Phoenix, AZ
Zodiac Sign: Virgo
Height: 5’ 7” (1.7 m)
Family: wife Cindy, 4 sons Douglas, Andrew, John IV, and James and 3 daughters Sidney, Meghan, and Bridget
Parents: Admiral John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from Indiana) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (from Oklahoma)
Religion: Episcopalian
Education:
Graduated: United States Naval Academy (1958)
National War College (1974)
Career: U.S. Representative from 1983 to 1987
U.S. Senator from 1987-present
Government Committees:
-Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
-Chair, Committee on Indian Affairs, 1995-1997, 2005-2007
Books:
-Faith of My Fathers (1999)
-Worth Fighting For (2002)
-Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember (2005)
-Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them (2007)

Glad we're sticking to the topic

Do you know how hard WASP males can be to get along with if you do not happen to also be a WASP? Especially if you are a woman. If have found an inordinate number of individuals in the "WASP" catagory who are obnoxiously insecure enough to disallow any contribution anywhere by a person who is not another WASP male. Infortunately, WASP males DO have more control over the planet's finances and resources than any other group. Pardon me if I am a bit defensive about myself and abilities around them. I have had them unjustly sell me short too many times, just because I am not a WASP male, and I don't care for it. Don't want any of my daughters treated that way, either.

At least it is not a rant on abortion. (Before I get the usual PMs, a discussion on the big A is ok in an abortion or religion thread on that topic. JMHO )

But it snoozes when randomly sprinkled into odd threads, like this one, just my humble opinion. It is human nature so i understand. It will always happen.
Just commenting on some of the sprinkling.
..........................................................
DNA Testing and crime or medical records....2 different issues:

I see the thought behind a DNA registry for known violent offenders but I am still queezy on it's level of confidentiality or restricted use. Like let's start with criminals and then branch out and store all military people, govt workers, or whatever. That digression is kind of goofy on my part though. But the new technology and computer era has an impact on confidentiality.
..............I guess if I was a crime victim or had a loved one who was assaulted, I would want the data run and compared in a heart beat. I would be 100% behind it.
I am very supportive of law enforcement but this new technology leaves me wondering. I wonder about the safeguards and where it will lead.

Hmm, after the California saga where Brit's records were read by all and sold, I am queezy on confidentiality, especially now that its all being transcribed to a hard drive. Makes you wonder how things will be ten years out. For normal/unhollywood folks, the difficulty would be from the insurance industry. For celebs it is the gossip hounds, money, and loose lips.

HIPPA is only as good as the people who have access to a file or to staff who yack about patients in places they should not, like the elevator or in the hallway.
Thankfully, most are above reproach, and try hard to respect privacy.................Most try but it only takes one goof ball, or odd circumstance.