DNA sample by force

Post Reply New Topic

Man sleeps with a woman. Hours later woman is killed.

Man is arrested because his DNA is on file. Days are spent trying to get him to confess to killing the woman.

By the time the cops start to suspect maybe they had the wrong guy and look at some of the less obvious evidence the killer is on another continent.

Assuming of course they don't go ahead with trial and conviction of the poor guy who's only crime was a one night stand.

All the guy would have to say is that he slept with her and that explains his DNA. DNA is not a conviction magic bullet. DNA is actually not well trusted in courts. The US is founded on principles that don't allow people to have anything done to them or for them by force unless there is a really good reason. Slowly we are actually creating laws that enforce that idea.

Sure it only definitely means he slept with her but it can also prove he was at the scene of the crime around the time it occurred and can be inferred he was the last person to see her alive depending on the circumstances. It's a known fact that the vast majority of homicides are committed by someone close to you after all. Once they have all that they start to apply confirmation bias where they ignore the pieces that don't fit and try to shoehorn the rest into their theory of what happened.

It's common for people to believe the (US at least) justice system is fair but trust me there are a lot of situations where being identified by DNA can get you convicted of a crime you didn't commit if only for the fact they don't have any other suspects.

That is short sighted. Same as "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you mind being spied on?"

While I could conclude my post here, or find a safer avenue of asserting my point, I'd like to make something clear:

Not everything illegal is immoral.
Not everything illegal is wrong.
Not everything immoral is illegal.
Not everything wrong is illegal.

I am not making any assertion that we should or should not take DNA, or under what circumstance, but I am saying that there is a debate here. There exists a gray area; a scenario in which such a policy would undermine the freedoms it sought to protect.

I had a bad dream months ago;

I was just going for a stroll, and decided to wander over to this obelisk monument, theres a lot of people milling about, and a few police, but i didnt feel concern as it was peaceful and i had nothing to hide.

As im walking i feel this tugging on my waist & this young boy is walking behind me, with one hand holding my jacket. Now i like children, but this felt profoundly 'wrong' & invasive, i just wanted this kid to f**k off. & he did, a moment later walking over to a nearby man and walking off together hand in hand - it looked a bit odd, unnatural & out of place.

Then this police woman immediately came up to me and enquired what i was doing with that child? I said nothing, i had nothing to do with that kid and he was with his father now anyway (pointing). She says politely 'just hold your hand out here please' (in an informal, chatty way that doesnt provoke defensiveness) & grabs onto my wrist. At that moment i notice some odd apparatus hidden about her clothing and suddenly everything makes sense - this was a DNA harvesting operation & they were using a child-actor as an excuse (playing on the publics paedo-phobia etc) I said very loudly 'are you trying to take my DNA?'.. then shouting 'I do not give consent to having my dna taken! etc & thrashing about trying to get free. then i woke up! & remembered theyve already took my DNA 7 years ago so it wasnt such a big deal anyway!



DNA - Do Not Allow them to take yours.

police are nervous people. atleast the ones here are, christ almighty i got stopped for not walking on the sidewalk awile back