Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested

[Rose Siding]

Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.

The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data are stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes.

Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly.

"When police retrace the history of a serial predator after he is finally caught, they often find that he never had a prior criminal conviction, but did have a prior arrest," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. "That means the only way they are likely to catch such a perpetrator after his first crime -- rather than his 10th -- is if authorities can maintain a comprehensive database of all those who are arrested, just as we do with fingerprints."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301665.html

[madeline_con]

1. What about those arrested or detained by LOCAL authorities?

:shrug:

[rodeodance]

2. "It's a classic mission-creep situation," --and I agree!

.....Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics.

"This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" by police, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank.

Originally, the federal DNA database was limited to convicted sex offenders, who often repeat their crimes. Then it was expanded to include violent felons. Several states, including Virginia, also collect DNA from those arrested for violent crimes.

"It's a classic mission-creep situation," said Jim Harper, a privacy specialist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "These guys are playing a great law and order game . . . and in the process creating a database that could be converted into something quite dangerous."

[bahrbearian]

15. Wow, the Cato Institute Its nice to see them get something right,

[CanOfWhoopAss]

3. And those arrested for non-violent protests

The severity of the crime or just any arrest... bogus or not?

<<>>

But privacy advocates say they are unclear how the growing number of state and federal samples are being handled, recorded and secured.

<<>>

If officials can't secure an election how can they secure a genetic database?

[rodeodance]

4. "Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses"

Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics.

"This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" by police, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank.

Originally, the federal DNA database was limited to convicted sex offenders, who often repeat their crimes. Then it was expanded to include violent felons. Several states, including Virginia, also collect DNA from those arrested for violent crimes........

[CanOfWhoopAss]

6. Exactly, if ChoicePoint can't secure personal information...

and other companies have leaks, how do you trust local officials who can't secure an election. Do you outsource care of such a database to ChoicePoint or someone else. Will your genetic information be availble on LexisNexis or somewhere else because you were arrested for suspicion of jaywalking?

[Igel]

9. But don't we already get massive amounts

of racial and ethnic profiling, and properly so?

Rape victim describes the rapist Latino male, and there are two real options: say she's lying or mistaken; and go out and look for Latino males (and not Russian or Fula females).

I don't understand Dempsey's concern.

The problem would be that those working with DNA know that it's difficult to declare with certainty the race (or worse, ethnicity) of a DNA donor. It's gotten better, but there are still problems. But I have to wonder (it's an empirical question) whether the error rate would be higher or lower than eye-witness descriptions.

[madeline_con]

7. "... advocates say they are unclear ..."

Let me clarify this for them.

If the current handling of samples from crime scenes, etc. are any indication of the way this program will be inplemented, it wil be a screwed up, bureaucratic mess, taking decades to test samples.

None of the charges will stick due to mishandling, and the counry will go broke funding it.

[slaveplanet]

5. All the better to frame you with next time

My pretty!

But seriously....Didn't Palast say something about the massive DNA databases they already have for all medical patients.

when they take your blood ...they draw 3 vials
One goes for the database.

Vampires

[teryang]

8. These prophylactic laws of central police power are unproven

There is absolutely no scientific data to show that taking DNA samples from "all detainees" will prevent even one crime. This is the classic tendency of unchecked government power to evolve into dictatorship by creating an endless series of police power lists. The alleged basis is to prevent crime, there is absolutely no showing that these laws prevent sexual offenses. The laws do not distinguish between a totally disabled retarded person who exhibited his genitals in a public place where children are present nor a sixteen year old boy who gets a blow job from his fifteen year old date. No distinction is made between recidivist and non recidivists. They are all lumped together, stigmatized and hounded by the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives at astronomical costs. Restrictions are placed on their residence that make them untouchables. Then when they have no place to live, they are branded felons based upon a status. This is what expert analysts of totalitarianism call "civil death."

The sexual offender list with completely inflexible and impractical registration, residency and reporting requirements is based upon out of control prejucice, fear, political opportunism. It has created a dangerous situation of an ostracized class of fugitives, many of whom are schizophrenic, retarded, and many otherwise normal people who are not even a criminal threat. They all indiscriminately pursued based upon a scarlet letter or mark of cain strategy. Among them is a smaller group of persons who could be fairly characterized as predators, who are lost among the countless others.

This issue is a subject of controversy now in professional criminal justice circles as a huge number of these cases are beginning to clog the courts with no disposition other than prison deemed possible. These initial justifications are being used as a wedge to create status populations of identified possible offenders. It is expected that it will be expanded to drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves and so on, all of which populations are growing due to our dickenesque social deterioration because they are a threat to families and law abiding persons. The concept of punishment for crime is being changed to indefinite and unending restriction of liberty for an alleged tendency or threat that remains inchoate and may have never been proven after the statutory traditional punishment has been imposed. Arrests and imprisonment take place pre-emptively across the country because the former offender is homeless.

This is all based upon the premise that law enforcement sure would be easier in a dictatorship. Dictatorship is however by definition an arbitrary government operated without laws.

[theHandpuppet]

10. Kicked and recommended!!

Scary times, folks!

[Straight Shooter]

11. On its face, a good idea. In practical reality, probably not so good.

I don't believe it will help to prevent crime, but perhaps to solve some crimes faster. In serious cases of rape or murder, that's a big benefit.

What concerns me is the group of powermongers who sit on the sidelines, rubbing their hands with glee, considering the potential upside for their schemes by having access to incredibly private information on citizens. Insurance companies which receive such information may well have another excuse not to insure people.

The problem seems never to be the technology per se. It's because we've learned we cannot trust those in charge of the oversight of the technology.

[Festivito]

12. Something health insurance companies would love to see.

...Oh, I'm sorry, that's a pre-existing condition for which you needed to take a separate policy. We'd be glad to sell you one...

[MADem]

13. If you are in the Service, they take your DNA at your first physical

They've been doing it for awhile. Where this information goes, that is the question....

[genieroze]

14. What's next, DNA from those given a ticket for jaywalking?

Or, cop sees jaywalker and goes to hand him/her a ticket. Person reaches for ticket and by mistake touches officer. Oops, assault of an officer, so person gets arrested. Does anyone see how this can be abused?

[Kailassa]

17. gives them a convincing way to frame people

Genieroze, sorry, you've got it all wrong. The legislation they are asking for will allow them to take DNA from anyone they detain for any reason. No need for you to be jaywalking, let alone arrested. You can be detained just for (supposedly) looking like someone else.

[AX10]

16. This is FASCISM! So if you are arrested for jay walking...

your DNA will be taken? :wtf:? Bush is a Fascist.

[bearfan454]

18. Fuck that shit.

After that they'll want to look up your ass and see what you had for lunch.

[Doris32r]

19. I don't see a difference between taking DNA and fingerprints...

When you're arrested, they take your fingerprints. What is so different about taking a swab for DNA? Also isn't this the same as the advocates who want a gun's fingerprint (a fired bullet's markings) on file in case the gun is used in a crime? If you look at serial killers. Many are arrested for minor crimes where only fingerprints are taken. If police took DNA samples at the time of a minor arrest, they could catch serial killers so much easier and thereby save lives. I guess you could argue that only if a person is convicted can their DNA be put on file. If you put DNA on file when a person is innocent until proven guilty, then that does seem to be a violation of their right's.

[Nostradammit]

21. I guess you could argue that the gummint shouldn't let us out of our house

at night. Why, think of all the lives that would be saved.

Seems to me that maybe the government should not be able to take part of your body. Your body does belong to you, does it not?

[Doris32r]

22. I'm not certain I understand your post...

Are you saying the govt should not be allowed to take DNA from anybody? And if so, how do you feel about the govt taking your fingerprints? Or a blood test to check if you were drunk driving? There have been a sizable number of people who were wrongly convicted of a crime before we had DNA testing and then were found innocent when DNA tests were run. Couldn't you argue that if there is DNA evidence all over a body and your DNA does not match then of course you're innocent? Wouldn't this help to stop innocent people from being convicted of a crime they did not do? I'm not certain how I feel about this potential new law. Just thinking out loud.

[Nostradammit]

23. I'm pretty certain that it sucks. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The problem with taking the DNA from arrested people is discrimination

While keeping DNA from convicted people means they have had to go through the whole legal system, probably with a jury trial, and thus are fairly likely to actually be guilty, people who are arrested may well be innocent. It's very easy to arrest someone, take their DNA, and then say "sorry, we made a mistake" and let them go. That's then available for them to use however they want - perhaps to prove you were the whistleblower who used the photocopy room to expose government corruption, or whatever.

Unfortunately, Senator Kyl is stupid:

"That means the only way they are likely to catch such a perpetrator after his first crime -- rather than his 10th -- is if authorities can maintain a comprehensive database of all those who are arrested, just as we do with fingerprints."

If you want to catch someone after their first crime through DNA, then you have to have their DNA on record before the crime. That means taking the DNA of the whole population. Either that, or he thinks that the police are clairvoyant, and can predict who will commit a crime, so they can falsely arrest them, take their DNA, then release them, so they can then commit their first crime. Kyl should just be honest and push for taking all his constituents' DNA. I bet they'd hate the idea.

If an innocent person is accused of a crime where there is DNA evidence, then they can have the DNA taken, prove it wasn't them, and the DNA record is then thrown away.

[Oilwellian]

26. So, in other words...

leave the DNA testing as it already is. Seems to work just fine in proving one's innocence so why change things?

Also, imagine the pre-existing health issues that can be found in your DNA, and employers or health insurance companies obtain that information?

[aion]

20. Why don't they just brand us, and get it over with? n/t

[suffragette]

25. continuing with their agenda

Rose Siding,
Thanks so much for posting about this. While so much of the nation's attention is focused on recent major events, these busy little bees at the Senate are making another attempt to sneak through legislation that further erodes our civil rights.

Senators Cornyn and Kyl were at the front of the push to enact the Real ID bill. They rammed that one through by attaching it to a larger bill. Now the same crew is doing the same thing. Keep in mind that Real ID also calls for databased info that could include biometric data.

From the last part of the WAPO article: "The Kyl measure was added to a bill to strengthen penalties for violent acts against women and was approved without a roll-call vote. McCurdy said she hopes that negotiations among Judiciary Committee members result in changes before the legislation is voted on by the Senate."

From feminist.org: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9257

Violence Against Women Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee With Amendment
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a mark-up of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization today. The bill, which expires on September 30, passed out of committee, but an amendment was added that could prevent or delay its passage by the full Senate.

The amendment, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), on behalf of Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), would create a national registry of DNA taken from any person who has been detained by the police, even if the person is not arrested or convicted. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) tried to include a secondary amendment to link the DNA index only to violent felonies, but it was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), the primary sponsor of VAWA in the Senate, said that he feared the DNA amendment could cause a firestorm on the Senate floor that would delay passage of VAWA. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that he feared it was a poison pill. Senator Leahy said that he is worried that whole classes of people, such as Latinos or Muslims, will be rounded up and their DNA will be recorded in the registry. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) pledged to try to work out a compromise on the amendment before the bill reaches the floor, which is expected before the end of the month.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, and Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, attended the mark-up, as did many women, to show their support for passage of VAWA. Legal Momentum, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Sheila Wellstone Institute have also been working extremely hard to pass the bill.

VAWA is a good bill that has received and deserves much support.
It looks like they are trying to force people who are in favor of the larger bill to choose between passing it with this onerous addition or not reauthorizing it. This is yet another slime ball move on their part. Like Real ID, they know that such a measure would face a big fight on its own, but has a chance when tucked in to something that is otherwise sure to pass.

The next thing to watch is whether Rep. Sensenbrenner and/or Rep. Mark Green introduces something similar to the House version of VAWA.