Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup, from a Tribune editorial…

When someone is arrested for a serious crime, police automatically take a set of fingerprints and no one thinks twice about it.

In close to 20 states — but not Illinois — the cops go a step further: They take a DNA sample from everyone who has been arrested for a serious crime but not yet tried. The FBI recently started to do the same.

That’s a reflection of just how valuable DNA has become as a way to catch the guilty — and exonerate the innocent. Experience shows that such databases stop criminals and solve cases.

Five years ago, Illinois tried to follow suit. The House approved a similar law only to watch it die in the Senate. Critics said such testing was an invasion of privacy for people who may have done nothing wrong.

From the bill’s synopsis…

Provides that every person arrested for committing a felony shall have a sample of his or her saliva or tissue taken for DNA fingerprinting analysis, at the time of booking, for the purpose of determining identity and for certain other specified purposes.

* The Question: Should the police be allowed to take a DNA sample after arresting someone for a felony? Explain fully, please.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:27 am

Comments

No, DNA should only be taken with a court order or after a felony conviction. To do otherwise is an intrusion upon the individual’s privacy and liberty.

Comment by Mike Murray Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:30 am
Heck, why start when someone is arrested. Using the Tribunes argument that this is kosher because “Those arguments [against DNA testing] miss the more powerful point: The innocent have nothing to fear.

The only people who stand to lose are the guilty.”

Given that position, let’s take everyone’s DNA regardless of whether they’ve been arrested. I mean, only the guilty have to worry. We can also institute mandatory drug testing too. Every will take a urine and/or hair sample at their local precinct. Really, the Trib shouldn’t care because the innocent have nothing to fear.

And we can finally do away with the pesky warrant requirement because no one should object if they come to search a house because only the guilty have something to hide. Maybe we can start with holding that if you are arrested they can search your home without consent, a warrant or exigent circumstances.

Comment by ThreeSheets Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:37 am
Yes

it does not effect kliberty because the taking of a DNA sample does not impede the person in any respect.

It does not invade privacy as there is no right to conceal your identity from the government/law enforcement.

Comment by Ghost Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:41 am
Yes, providing that the State provides proper funding to local law enforcement agencies for collection costs and especially to the crime lab for processing so many samples. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a classic unfunded mandate.

Comment by Stones Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:44 am
No arrest=/guilt or a conviction. Why not just take DNA and file it away at birth? We all know Chicago has an exemplary history of convicting the right people and no one has sat in jail due to improper police work/tactics.

Comment by Wumpus Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:48 am
Yes. what the Tribune said.

Comment by Amy Monday, May 18, 09 @ 10:54 am
No, I’m not ready to go there. Too Big Brother. Seems self-incriminating, by definition.

Why not make it like a search and require a judge’s signature? It’s not like you can flush your DNA down the loo — there’s no hurry for the police to get it.

Besides, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to get someone’s DNA once they’re in police custody. We all leave a trail of it wherever we go and whatever we do.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:02 am
I would be in favor of it but only after a felony conviction, or someone charged with a felony who pleads down to a misdemeanor. It seems a litle big-brotherish but if it stops violent crime, I think it’s worth a shot.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:14 am
Yes. To assist in regards to the charges being leveled against the defendant, a DNA sample can be the evidence needed to clear them.

DNA isn’t just for convicting someone - it is to assist in convicting the right person, and free those innocent folks under investigation.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:23 am
Yes. It’s the 21st century version of fingerprints.

Comment by Excessively rabid Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:28 am
VM, I think Juan Rivera might disagree with you on the gov’t using DNA to clear someone.

Comment by ThreeSheets Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:43 am
Yes, because the humongous $$$ saved from avoiding false convictions could save lives. But as noted above, lab technicians cost and we already have a shortage.

Comment by lake county democrat Monday, May 18, 09 @ 11:52 am
VM, I think Juan Rivera might disagree with you on the gov’t using DNA to clear someone.

I don’t know who Juan Rivera is, but with every mistake due to DNA, there are dozens of innocent people who have been freed, thanks to DNA. I have personally met four of them.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 18, 09 @ 12:04 pm
No. While a person can’t have their fingerprints “planted” unknowingly at a crime scene, a person’s DNA can be.

Too much opportunity for abuse by some bad people in charge.

Comment by Cheswick Monday, May 18, 09 @ 12:05 pm
Well, as a veteran, my DNA is already on file with the government, so I’m kind of ambivalent about it.

However, no sample should be taken just for being arrested. Why would someone being arrested for a protest or drunk and disorderly be required to give up a sample? Seems a bit extreme.

Comment by JohnR Monday, May 18, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Mike Murray’s comment was dead-on.

People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If we’re willing to take DNA samples from those presumed innocent, everyone should be prepared to give a sample when they vote, visit the DMV, etc.

Comment by Blah, blah, blah Monday, May 18, 09 @ 12:23 pm
Conditionally yes.

If the prosecution of the crime requires DNA comparisons as physical evidence, the collection should be done as it is today. If the profile matches other physical evidence in unsolved crimes, so be it. e.g. accounting fraud would not depend on DNA evidence, therefore no DNA collection would be necessary.

If the defendant is found not guilty, then the DNA evidence should be cleared from the system.

As far as the comment of the use of DNA evidence to convict Juan Rivera, remember that a DNA comparison is a link that proves ones presence. The lack of DNA evidence does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a person was present. Quite a number of crime shows have been covering the possibility of framing a person with falsely planted DNA evidence. Interesting concepts need to be watched.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, May 18, 09 @ 12:25 pm
Yes, the police should be able to take and keep DNA databases. The state interest in solving crimes and insuring inocent people don’t go to jail or worse outweighs the damage to one’s privacy. How is my privacy really invaded if you swab my mouth one time, and I never commit a crime. My name will never come up in the database and no one will ever know it is there. Weigh that with the possibility that a person spends time in jail for crimes they did not do. The state interest here is clearly greater than the privacy infringement. If you really think of the sex related offenses and getting those people off the street ane exonerating innocent people the state interst is stronger.

Not to mention, if I am a thug and my DNA is in the system. Now I don’t have to be hauled in for questioning evertime a crime happens with my MO or in my city. Just run the DNA and you will see it wasn’t me. The only people this really hurts are the guilty ones.

Comment by the Patriot Monday, May 18, 09 @ 1:13 pm
My point regarding Juan Rivera was to note a case where despite DNA pointing to someone else and two prior trials where the government argued it was him, suddenly at the third trial after DNA tests showed the DNA was not Rivera’s, the government decided that the 10 year old victim must’ve had sex with someone else who wasn’t part of the crime. DNA does not always “clear” someone when the government simply argues that someone else left the sample but the defendant still committed the crime.

Comment by ThreeSheets Monday, May 18, 09 @ 1:30 pm
===If you really think of the sex related offenses and getting those people off the street ane exonerating innocent people the state interst is stronger.===

and

===The only people this really hurts are the guilty ones.===

You should read ThreeSheets’s post above because he counters this argument perfectly.

The point is not what is best for people, the point is that we do not sacrifice our liberty for any reason no matter what the cost. The founding fathers put the preservation of an individuals rights and liberty above the pursuit of justice. That is why guilty people go free on technicalities people.

And it is definitely an intrusion into someone’s privacy to take their DNA without a court order and while they are presumed innocent.

Why not just take everyone DNA at birth. Better yet, let’s implant a GPS chip in them. Whenever a crime is committed we can just see which GPS signal was at the crime scene and arrest that person. It would solve all crime and keep innocent people out of jail. We would not really even need a justice system so it would save on court costs too. Great Idea!

What is the difference between taking DNA and implanting a GPS chip? While were at it, lets also put cameras in everyone’s home and on every street conrer. By your logic, it does not impede our liberty and you only have something to worry about if you are committing crimes.

The founding fathers included the 4th amendment in the bill of rights for a reason. Clearly it would be easier for the government to solve crimes if they can monitor citizens and search them without a warrant.

HOWEVER, the possibility that the government could abuse that power to threaten liberty trumped the pursuit of justice. In America, the preservation of liberty has always been valued as the most important aspect of advancing the public good, even more then getting sexual offenders off the streets and keeping a few innocent people out of jail.

Comment by Mike Murray Monday, May 18, 09 @ 2:03 pm
The right to be free of an illegal search and seizure is in the Constitution because it is of paramount importance to a free society. This right won’t be repealed, just chipped away by right wing ideas like DNA taken on arrest before any judge or jury hears the case, until it is meaningless.
It is odd the the strict constructionists are the first ones endorsing this idea.

Comment by Tom Joad Monday, May 18, 09 @ 3:07 pm
=== And it is definitely an intrusion into someone’s privacy to take their DNA without a court order and while they are presumed innocent. ===

No it is not.

=== The founding fathers included the 4th amendment in the bill of rights for a reason. Clearly it would be easier for the government to solve crimes if they can monitor citizens and search them without a warrant. ====

The 4th amendment does not prohibit the governemnt from demanding that you idetify yourself correctly. In fact, the supreme court held that the refusal to provide proper identification during a terry stop is a basis to arrest an individual, all without impinging the 4th amendment. Since DNA, like a fingerprint, is a form of identification, there is no violation.

The founding fathers were not fighting to hide identity.

Comment by Ghost Monday, May 18, 09 @ 3:13 pm
DNA would free the one’s who didn’t do the crime.

Comment by Boscobud Monday, May 18, 09 @ 3:23 pm
– Since DNA, like a fingerprint, is a form of identification, there is no violation.–

Ghost, how quickly are law enforcement getting those fingerprint and DNA tests for ID purposes? I’m sure you can accurately identify the most intransigent arrestees weeks before you would ever get those tests back.

Brother, I’ve got a flash for you: no law enforcement agency wants fingerprints or DNA for identification. They want them to match up evidence at the scene of the crime. That’s where you get into the self-incrimination problem. If it takes a judge’s signature to search your house, why not your hair and mouth, too?

In Family Secrets, the feds came and got DNA from the wiseguys decades after some of the murders. It still worked real good. You don’t need DNA at arrest; it’s not going anywhere.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 18, 09 @ 3:24 pm
No one should be saying that DNA is foolproof as justification for using it. DNA is as good an identifier than fingerprints, and can assist in identification.

Whether it fails during a particular case shouldn’t over-rule it’s strengths anymore than arresting a suspect should end because sometimes the wrong person is arrested.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 18, 09 @ 4:43 pm
My DNA is on file because my son’s father contested paternity and I willing did a DNA test.

Am I in favor of DNA testing for criminals? Heck Ya!!

Do I think we should do it for anyone who gets arrested? Absolutely not!!

Perhaps someone has access to research showing us what percentage of people who are arrested are charged, and what further (probably smaller) percentage are convicted of the crime.

No one in favor of this has said how tests would be funded, and today was the day we got treated to the “doomsday Budget”. Labs are already backed up, and we are going to increase load (perhaps friviously)?

Look at how Britain has been using DNA–when I read stories of what they are doing lots of alarm bells start going off in my head.

And what safeguards will we have once DNA is on file?

Comment by Lynn S Monday, May 18, 09 @ 4:54 pm