Recommended Posts
jakee 1,596
QuoteI know that this is Naive but I would have thought that a very simple due process procedure would remove most(all?) the potential for mixups. So if you are a suspect based on DNA evidence the original material must be re-referenced/checked and your sample should be re-validated and updated.
I agree there, I would imagine that it would be incredibly rare for mistakes on the DNA database alone to lead to a conviction - but it takes a lot less than that to seriously mess up your day! Just getting marched down to the station, getting lawyers involved etc. while they find out that you're not who they think you are would be a little less than ideal
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
JohnRich 4
QuoteI know that this is Naive but I would have thought that a very simple due process procedure would remove most(all?) the potential for mixups. So if you are a suspect based on DNA evidence the original material must be re-referenced/checked and your sample should be re-validated and updated.
Uh-huh. And what happens when the DNA matches to the guy from whom the crook stole the screwdriver, instead of the crook himself.
Pity that poor honest homeowner who had his garage tools pilfered...
If they let you have a gun you can just blow their fuckin g heads off. Case closedQuoteQuote
Yeah, but what is happening here is a database of anyone who's ever been arrested. Big diff.
Call it a knee jerk reaction but being a very recent "victim" of a crime the reassurance that the tools are in place to put the dipsticks back inside ASAP is a relief.
As many petty thieves are recurrent offenders and as acknowledged by the local cops our local crime rate is rapidly rising as a number of known individuals are being released at the end of their sentances the sooner they are back in the prison system the better.
BTW I find the taking of this information on arrest far more palatable than the US method of putting arrest details online - including personal information.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
BIGUN 1,488
I read an article about a year ago, whereby all these forensics shows are teaching criminals how to _tamper_ with the scene of a crime by seeding/salting the scene with hair samples, etc. Just going to the barber and having yours and a hundred other people's hair for the day harvested out of the dumpster by some criminal could find you standing in front of an investigator. Now I don't pretend to have a solution, but sometimes the solution can be fraught with additional issues. Your screwdriver example is one of them.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
QuoteI read an article about a year ago, whereby all these forensics shows are teaching criminals how to _tamper_ with the scene of a crime by seeding/salting the scene with hair samples, etc. Just going to the barber and having yours and a hundred other people's hair for the day harvested out of the dumpster by some criminal could find you standing in front of an investigator.
I thought you needed a follicle to provide a DNA sample.
JohnRich 4
Quote...sometimes the solution can be fraught with additional issues. Your screwdriver example is one of them.
Correct. Everyone wants to jump to a conclusion that someone is guilty because their DNA was found somewhere. DNA does not prove guilt, or innocence. It simply means that you had some contact there. You still need good old-fashioned police evidence to prove that the person's contact there made him the guilty party.
I fear that so many people are so enamored with this technology to the point that scores of innocent people will be/have been sent to prison simply because a few skin cells or hairs ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were then knee-jerk interpreted in the wrong way.
What planet do you live on? Skin, saliva, anything off your body. Jeessh. KidsQuoteQuoteI read an article about a year ago, whereby all these forensics shows are teaching criminals how to _tamper_ with the scene of a crime by seeding/salting the scene with hair samples, etc. Just going to the barber and having yours and a hundred other people's hair for the day harvested out of the dumpster by some criminal could find you standing in front of an investigator.
I thought you needed a follicle to provide a DNA sample.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
BIGUN 1,488
QuoteI thought you needed a follicle to provide a DNA sample.
How is DNA typing done?
Only one-tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. Scientists can use these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other body tissues and products.
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
Krip 2
QuoteQuoteI know that this is Naive but I would have thought that a very simple due process procedure would remove most(all?) the potential for mixups. So if you are a suspect based on DNA evidence the original material must be re-referenced/checked and your sample should be re-validated and updated.
Uh-huh. And what happens when the DNA matches to the guy from whom the crook stole the screwdriver, instead of the crook himself.
Pity that poor honest homeowner who had his garage tools pilfered...
Same problem with finger prints. In the USA the gov't has a large data base of finger prints, includeing past and current GI's, CWP permits, passports.
The FBI fingered
a the wrong dude for the terror bombing in spain based on misidentification finger print evidence. ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Don't look up
JohnRich 4
QuoteSame problem with finger prints. In the USA the gov't has a large data base of finger prints, includeing past and current GI's, CWP permits, passports.
The FBI fingereda the wrong dude for the terror bombing in spain based on misidentification finger print evidence.
Yep, and you only have to look at yesterday's talk in the D.B. Cooper thread, where the FBI agent reviewing the case ruled out Duane Weber as a suspect, because the DNA on his necktie didn't match. He didn't even seem to consider the possibility that the necktie could easily have contained DNA from many different people, and just because it didn't match, doesn't mean absolutely that he wasn't the person wearing it during the hijacking.
DNA science is nice, but you still have to use logic in interpreting the meaning of the results.
I think it depends how it is implemented. If, for example immigration announced that they would take a DNA sample of every illegal they catch, the population would heartily approve. Of course DNA samples to the FBI for all convicted felons goes without saying; it's really no different than fingerprints. I have never been arrested for anything in any country, but my fingerprints are on file in Canada (for a security clearance that I no longer need), and in the US (just because the agent decided I deserved a closer look one day). Of course the Americans only have my index fingers. Next year that border crossing (Toronto International Airport) will get facilities to take all ten. The jump to taking a hair sample is not a big one.
The list of jobs requiring a sample (teacher, boy scout leader, soccer coach,...) will slowly grow until eventually the public is so used to it they acquiesce.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites