Supreme Court Allows Police to Collect DNA Samples from Arrestees

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

In an era where government wants to take over healthcare (and limit costs) who the hell knows what that DNA could someday be used for?

yeah if they don't like your DNA ....well that's it for you.

[CJ7]

"It may be wise, as the court obviously believes, to make the Leviathan all-seeing, so that he may protect us all the better. But the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. I dissent."

Justice Scalia

[Whirlaway]

The fingerprint comparison is a false argument.

A person's DNA is genetically inherited; thus if the government has your grandparents DNA on file; they can profile your DNA with never taking a swab.

Same can't be said of fingerprinting.

Wait til science starts connecting DNA structure to criminal propensities; such as pedophile, etc................the government will have your DNA on file....if they have your parents DNA, they don't even need a swab...they have you in their data base.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by JCM800

yeah if they don't like your DNA ....well that's it for you.

I see you conveniently left the rest out. How long before the same dim bulbs who think computer models can predict climate think they can also predict lifespan from DNA? Then it's pretty easy for those "non-existent" death panels to decide you have an expiration date and aren't worth treating.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The fingerprint comparison is a false argument.

A person's DNA is genetically inherited; thus if the government has your grandparents DNA on file; they can profile your DNA with never taking a swab.

Same can't be said of fingerprinting.

Wait til science starts connecting DNA structure to criminal propensities; such as pedophile, etc................the government will have your DNA on file....if they have your parents DNA, they don't even need a swab...they have you in their data base.

a fingerprint isn't inherited? where did you get yours? K Mart?

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

If we can't take DNA samples, then how can we in principle take fingerprints?

The DNA test is non-invasive. They aren't taking blood. It is a cotton swab from the inside of the mouth. It is no more invasive than applying ink to someone's skin and taking a print.

I can't see how one can be OK and the other not OK.

That may seem counter-intuitive, but it isn't.

Yeah, if you're going to allow fingerprinting automatically, it would just seem that DNA sampling logically follows.

Originally Posted by WTF

Interesting bedfellows you have there Whirly. You Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Isn't life a hoot!

I did find it interesting that the decision wasn't along political lines this time. You have liberals joined with the most conservative justice in the minority with a liberal + 3 conservatives + 1 swing vote in the majority.

Originally Posted by CJ7

a fingerprint isn't inherited? where did you get yours? K Mart?

I personally buy mine at Wal-Mart since I support America and our troops. Amurica!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Fingerprints don't contain the potential information on medical conditions DNA does.

So what?

The criminal DNA identification is a relatively simple and inexpensive test that looks at entire strands of DNA to detect unique patterns in groups of genes. You can compare two different samples to see if patterns match and therefore identify someone.

The criminal DNA identification is not a complete DNA analysis to detect individual genes associated with diseases. Those are a battery of many tests. They are expensive and cannot be conducted on 23 million DNA samples taken during arrests. That would bankrupt the government.

The DNA crime database contains much less information.

As a legal matter, you can prohibit its use for anything other than criminal identification.

As a practical matter, it doesn't contain the genetic information you need to detect diseases.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The fingerprint comparison is a false argument.

A person's DNA is genetically inherited; thus if the government has your grandparents DNA on file; they can profile your DNA with never taking a swab.

Same can't be said of fingerprinting.

Wait til science starts connecting DNA structure to criminal propensities; such as pedophile, etc................the government will have your DNA on file....if they have your parents DNA, they don't even need a swab...they have you in their data base.

No, they don't.

A cursory examination of people in the same family ought to be enough to demonstrate that what you just wrote is nonsense. In the same family, you can have one child who is a pedophile and another who is sickened by the thought of it. If they both came from the same parents, how can science possibly predict or determine that a child will be a pedophile just from the parental DNA?

Your parents DNA can be combined in a million different ways to create similar, but by no means identical children. No matter how many children they have, they will never produce another one just like you. Thank God - no more ALL CAPS posts.

No two of your sperm cells are identical. No two of a woman's eggs are identical. And you don't know which 2 of either will successfully fertilize until after it happens.

Examining your parental DNA may enable scientists to make odds predictions about whether or not you may develop a certain type of disease.

But it does not allow them to determine exactly what your DNA is like.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The fingerprint comparison is a false argument.

A person's DNA is genetically inherited; thus if the government has your grandparents DNA on file; they can profile your DNA with never taking a swab.

Same can't be said of fingerprinting.

Wait til science starts connecting DNA structure to criminal propensities; such as pedophile, etc................the government will have your DNA on file....if they have your parents DNA, they don't even need a swab...they have you in their data base.

Where did you buy your fingerprints at? Walmart.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Cruz has an office in San Antonio; which everyone knows is the de facto headquarters for Hispanics in Texas. Thank god Cruz doesn't pander to the Democrat base in Texas - you know, the voting bloc that wants amnesty, free healthcare, open borders, and more free shit for others to pay for.

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS? You fucking idiot!

I would suggest that several million border dwellers might argue you, ALL CAPS MAN!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Where did you buy your fingerprints at? Walmart.

He got the ex-employee's discount...

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The fingerprint comparison is a false argument.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Where did you buy your fingerprints at? Walmart.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He got the ex-employee's discount...

TrendingGay is not just any "ex-employee" at Wal-Mart.

He is a 20+ year retiree who was well known for keeping their mens restrooms spotless.

[Yssup Rider]

With his MERKIN!

[CuteOldGuy]

From Jesse Ventura:

Thanks to reader Shawn Hall for this comment, which we think is worth sharing with all of you:

"One good thing about yesterday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision giving law enforcement the authority to swab the cheek of someone being arrested in order to obtain their DNA: Now that the police can do this, as well as take an involuntary blood sample from you on "No Refusal" weekends, and the TSA can now grope you at airports, all this has the effect of a free physical exam; helping to defray health care costs.

"The idea that the Supreme Court is our last defense for upholding The Constitution and protecting our rights as citizens is a quaint, old-fashioned notion. Our property can be taken away from us at "market value" if a developer wants to build a parking garage where our living room is. Dissent and protests can be made a crime at the government's whim, giving a gut punch to the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment will most certainly be slapped around in some form or fashion, for the children, I'm sure; and now with this latest decision from the black-robed tyrants, the almost non-existent presumption of innocence completely goes by the wayside as we can now, officially, wipe ourselves with the 4th Amendment.

But hey, we've got our sports coupes and big-ass pickups, our iPhones and our satellite TV...and wasn't last night's episode of The Bachelor wonderful?"

[JD Barleycorn]

Any time you give the government information someone will figure out a way to use it for something. In 1917 the U.S, government called up millions of young men for service in the miltary. Some shrinks decided that this was a great time to implement the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. It was only to be used to evaluate new recruits but.....
After the war was over research looked into millions of test results and it was determined that up to a 1/3 of the U.S. population was so far below average in intelligence that the best course would be to sterilize them, against their will if necessary. 50,000 acknowledged cases of sterilization occurred. Even the Germans invited representives to come to Germany and explain the plan to rid the U.S. of undesirables but you know those crazy Germans. They wanted to get a step ahead and started killing undesirables. We could have gone the same way if not for that pesky Constitution that liberals love to hate.

So be aware of what happens to information in the hands of the government. Someone will use it for something.