Forced Dna Tests
<div class="IPBDescription">Fed. court overturned 9th circuit ruling</div> A divided Federal appeals court just overturned the ruling of the 9th circuit court that declared it unconstitutional to require the DNA of felons to be entered into a national database once they served their time.
Here is the article: <a href='http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004081820080002792121&dt=20040818200800&w=RTR&coview=' target='_blank'>Court allows forced DNA tests.</a>
I really hope this is overturned in the Supreme Court. It is far to much of a slippery slope IMO.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government can require certain criminals to submit to DNA testing after their release from prison, a divided U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday in a reversal of an opinion it issued last year.
In October, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law requiring people convicted of serious crimes to give blood for an FBI databank was unconstitutional. That 2-1 decision sided with the plaintiffs's argument that such a requirement violated Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.
An expanded panel of 11 judges overturned the opinion in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday...
.
.
.
All Americans will be at risk, sooner rather than later, of having our DNA samples permanently placed on file in federal cyberspace, and perhaps even worse, of being subjected to various other governmental programs providing for suspicionless searches," wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.
"It is undoubtedly true that were we to maintain DNA files on all persons living in this country we would make the resolution of criminal investigations easier," he wrote.
"The same would be true were we to sacrifice all of our interests in privacy and personal liberty.
"We as judges do not have the authority to sacrifice those constitutional protections."
Monica Knox, a federal public defender in Los Angeles who represents Kincade, said she would seek to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is the article: <a href='http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004081820080002792121&dt=20040818200800&w=RTR&coview=' target='_blank'>Court allows forced DNA tests.</a>
I really hope this is overturned in the Supreme Court. It is far to much of a slippery slope IMO.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government can require certain criminals to submit to DNA testing after their release from prison, a divided U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday in a reversal of an opinion it issued last year.
In October, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law requiring people convicted of serious crimes to give blood for an FBI databank was unconstitutional. That 2-1 decision sided with the plaintiffs's argument that such a requirement violated Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.
An expanded panel of 11 judges overturned the opinion in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday...
.
.
.
All Americans will be at risk, sooner rather than later, of having our DNA samples permanently placed on file in federal cyberspace, and perhaps even worse, of being subjected to various other governmental programs providing for suspicionless searches," wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.
"It is undoubtedly true that were we to maintain DNA files on all persons living in this country we would make the resolution of criminal investigations easier," he wrote.
"The same would be true were we to sacrifice all of our interests in privacy and personal liberty.
"We as judges do not have the authority to sacrifice those constitutional protections."
Monica Knox, a federal public defender in Los Angeles who represents Kincade, said she would seek to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
They are so liberally partisan that everything they rule on is immediately overturned. Those a55hat judges should be shot.
Also, certain large developed nations have a nasty habit of taking people's DNA and using it for research purposes, then patenting anything they find usable on it.
Fingerprints are good for identification and little else. Likewise you can't be biased against a fingerprint, you can't say "this fingerprint means you're susceptible to cancer". DNA has a lot of uses, and a lot of ways to exploit them.
See, I knew 6 years of genetics would come in handy.
It would be a logical fallacy if I referred to a final outcome such as: "Eventually everyone will be profiled by their DNA (or DNA screenings are made mandatory)" The logic in the definition you linked to is correct. However no 'If-Then' inferences were made.
My use of the term was to illustrate that the act of collection would soften people's resolve against such a collection leading the way for possible future applications of this technology that we might not previously want implemented into law. I never specifically mentioned a resulting action as a final outcome, rather I alluded to the situation that could make it a greater possibility. In this context, the use of the term, "slippery-slope", is logically correct.
Then again, you could have just been pointing out that there is a logical fallacy by the same name and not trying to belittle the point I was trying to make. If it was the latter, then I have been at work too long and need a vacation. If it was the former, then please remember that this is just a forum on the internet.
edit: <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> I think I am going to go with the vacation angle. Off to Pittsburgh I go.
It is very easy for DNA to be introduced into an area. With fingerprints, it is generally a given that YOU were there. You had to be to put a print there. Fingerprints generally fade with time (rubbed off, rain, contaminants, etc.) So if the police find a print at a crime scene, it is a good indication that not only were you there, but also that it was fairly recently.
Hair follicles and dander are easily spread and transferred. It is also easier to plant DNA evidence as it lasts much longer and is harder to tell if it has been planted (adjusts tinfoil hat). Simply wiping down and area or door handles will not eliminate DNA evidence.
The FBI and DoD have my DNA and fingerprints on file, but that was voluntary (and part of my job). That does not mean I am comfortable with them maintaining a database of such information who do not give it up freely (nor should they).
And that argument uses the slippery slope fallacy. Which is why I pointed it out.
And that argument uses the slippery slope fallacy. Which is why I pointed it out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is only a fallacy if it is possible for the final event to not occur if the proposition occurs.
Do you want to argue semantics, or do you want to address the issues relating to forced DNA databases?
Edit: Grammar does not lend itself to proofs by induction. I can start a grammar thread in the discussion forum if you wish.
Assume you're right: that it might lead to further applications of this technology that we would have been opposed to earlier. Now say the DNA-felon program goes 10 years and not a single leak has occurred and the only thing it has been used for is identification. Some people might be more inclined to accept using it as a universal form of ID. Of course many people wouldn't care in the slightest and would be opposed to it in any event. I don't see what's so horrible about that situation. Now on the other hand, if there's leak of the data or the government starts using it for other purposes, you can count on it that people would be <i>more</i> opposed to the idea.
In summary: If it starts leading to bad things, people will oppose it. That's why this (and other) slippery slope arguments are no good. You have to evaluate policies on their immediate merits.
And what else do you think these people are gonna want to collect in the future? If I'm not using it, they are welcome to it!
"You want my crap, really? Here, take it, I don't give a ****. Oh, well I guess I do....."
"You want my umbilical cord for stem cell research? Damn, I was gonna keep that as a souvenir."
Seriously, people are too damn sensitive. Besides, why oppose something now that is obviously beneficial in order to stave off something that might be harmful? Why not just fight whatever you dislike, when and if it comes into being?
2) skyhigh: it's a privacy thing. Crime would be easier to prevent/prosecute if we kept 100% of the population under surveillance at all times... but would you like to have a government-run camera tracking your movements at all times?
Civilization has been described as a group of people voluntarily surrendering some freedoms in order to better protect others. I surrender my right to indiscriminately kill my neighbors to better protect my right to my *own* life. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are a central tenet of American law... to many or most, "liberty" includes a right to privacy. It is hard to feel free when you have nothing truly personal, truly private.
3) Is this going too far? It's hard to say, really. Wizard's point about fingerprints vs. DNA is an interesting one, but I don't think it's the right direction for this argument. We shouldn't base everything on individual rules; there ought to be a broader, simpler ruleset for this kind of thing. In this case, the ruleset is privacy. Is requiring DNA samples of convicted criminals a violation of their right to privacy? The government already has their fingerprints. It already has names, addresses, birth information, social security, tax information, criminal history -- tons of stuff. Does it have the right to require their DNA as well?
My gut reaction is "no." Innocent until proven guilty is the credo of our justice system, and preemptively requiring DNA samples seems, to me, to be a presumption of guilt (or at least of attempt to commit additional crimes). But two counterarguments:
-a- We already take fingerprints. Then again, there's Wizard's argument. Then again, we should assume that our government can be trusted not to do something as low as planting evidence. Then again, the US was built on the premise of questioning authority.
-b- they're *criminals*. Criminals frequently commit additional crimes, so is this profiling, or is it justifiable?
So I'm not sure.
____
<!--QuoteBegin-"dhakbar"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("dhakbar")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 9th Circuit is absolutely worthless.
They are so liberally partisan that everything they rule on is immediately overturned. Those **** judges should be shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see your connection here. I don't want to turn this into a partisan debate, but "liberal" and "conservative" don't really connect to the privacy issue anymore.
--Exhibit A: the Patriot Act, which most liberals I know find horribly invasive.
--Exhibit B: Judge Reinhardt's comments on the subject, cited in the article quoted in the first post of this thread. While agreeing that a DNA database would make criminal investigation easier, his opinion is that "[w]e as judges do not have the authority to sacrifice those constitutional protections [on privacy and personal liberty]."
This is not a partisan debate; if you want to discuss privacy/liberty rights, feel free to make a thread in Discussions. But here, stick to the topic.
I fail to see how DNA sampling = cameras following us around.
Now the precedent on the other hand.....well, that's what democracy is for eh? It hasn't happened yet, and I can guarantee that it will never happen. No politician is willing to commit political suicide that easily.
-a- We already take fingerprints. Then again, there's Wizard's argument. Then again, we should assume that our government can be trusted not to do something as low as planting evidence. Then again, the US was built on the premise of questioning authority.
-b- they're *criminals*. Criminals frequently commit additional crimes, so is this profiling, or is it justifiable?
So I'm not sure.
____
<!--QuoteBegin-"dhakbar"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("dhakbar")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 9th Circuit is absolutely worthless.
They are so liberally partisan that everything they rule on is immediately overturned. Those **** judges should be shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see your connection here. I don't want to turn this into a partisan debate, but "liberal" and "conservative" don't really connect to the privacy issue anymore.
--Exhibit A: the Patriot Act, which most liberals I know find horribly invasive.
--Exhibit B: Judge Reinhardt's comments on the subject, cited in the article quoted in the first post of this thread. While agreeing that a DNA database would make criminal investigation easier, his opinion is that "[w]e as judges do not have the authority to sacrifice those constitutional protections [on privacy and personal liberty]."
This is not a partisan debate; if you want to discuss privacy/liberty rights, feel free to make a thread in Discussions. But here, stick to the topic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am of a similar mind. As a libertarian, my gut reaction is to recoil from this ruling and view it as a step in the wrong direction. Though, I cannot deny the fact that a great many crimes would be quickly solved and a great many lives could be saved.
I agree with Coil that this is not a political issue that can be divided between liberalism and conservatism. If anything its a civil liberties issue (North vs South rather than Left vs Right)
It really boils down to this: Do I trust the authorities enough with such a powerful and dangerous tool.
As an employee of the "military-industrial complex" I would like to hope so.
As an educated individual, I don't think I should.
Guh? Semantics? When someone makes a statement that matches the definition of a logical fallacy, I think it's pretty safe to call them on it. Explaining why entails demonstrating why that logical fallacy is bad (which I did, by the way). And it sounds like you're trying to tell me that the slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. Which is kind of a weird argument.
Meh.. planted physical evidence is the least of your worries.