TexasCHLforum.com

I heard yesterday that if you are convicted of a felony in Loiusana you give a sample of DNA and it is placed in a national data base. In that same news report they said Texas does not do this.

I personally would like to see that done everywhere. I know there will be someone who will complain about Big Government, but seems like a good way to solve other crimes.

Google CODIS.

I think DNA should be the new Fingerprints. Any arrest, security clearance, CHL, etc should take a sample.

I agree as long as it is limited to convicted felons.

While reading up on DNA databases awhile back I found that, like many other government programs, in some cases they started out with a felony only requirement but where changed to lower thresholds over time.

This likely speaks to the success of DNA repositories. It also speaks to the potential invasion of privacy issues that inevitably arise.

One interesting "benefit" of DNA testing is that if someone in your family who has not been swabbed commits a crime, the authorities can come to you to begin the investigation to look for the yet unknown perp. The DNA shows you have a familial connection to the crime.

This is the part that I don't like. Now your whole family is being investigated and probably swabbed to "prove your innocent!".

And the database grows...

PappaGun wrote:One interesting "benefit" of DNA testing is that if someone in your family who has not been swabbed commits a crime, the authorities can come to you to begin the investigation to look for the yet unknown perp. The DNA shows you have a familial connection to the crime.

This is the part that I don't like. Now your whole family is being investigated and probably swabbed to "prove your innocent!".

I've read news accounts of this very scenario happening in the real world.

Jumping Frog wrote:

PappaGun wrote:One interesting "benefit" of DNA testing is that if someone in your family who has not been swabbed commits a crime, the authorities can come to you to begin the investigation to look for the yet unknown perp. The DNA shows you have a familial connection to the crime.

This is the part that I don't like. Now your whole family is being investigated and probably swabbed to "prove your innocent!".

I've read news accounts of this very scenario happening in the real world.

This sounds like an idea whose time HAS NOT come. Is the DNA sample given or is it taken? There's this Constitution thinghy to consider somewhere in this Orwellian scheme.

At what point does DNA evidence become self-incrimination?

PappaGun wrote:One interesting "benefit" of DNA testing is that if someone in your family who has not been swabbed commits a crime, the authorities can come to you to begin the investigation to look for the yet unknown perp. The DNA shows you have a familial connection to the crime.

This is the part that I don't like. Now your whole family is being investigated and probably swabbed to "prove your innocent!".

And the database grows...

What an awful idea....
Surely this will come to pass, hopefully not soon.

Rex B wrote:At what point does DNA evidence become self-incrimination?

Exactly!

Another thing to consider is that THE ONLY information fingerprints give is identification of an individual. No additional information about the "donor" is disclosed. On the other hand, just about EVERYTHING about you can be determined by your DNA. Race, Sex, many medical issues, family connections or lack thereof, etc. How long will it be before insurance companies or employers are allowed access to the DNA database to determine if you're prone to various cancers or other medical conditions, etc.

I have a concern about the accuracy of DNA matching. Even the phrase "DNA fingerprinting" is bothersome. When I hear things like "one in 5 trillion chance of it not being John Doe's DNA" I can't help but point out that we don't have that many people on the earth. (Yeah, I know how they get to that real or bogus number.)

My primary concern is that we don't have enough experience with so-called DNA matching to proclaim the accuracy rates publicized. We used fingerprints for many decades so we have a lot of data; not so for DNA.

Another concern is the discrepancy we hear as to the ability to detect DNA in various sample sizes. Some blood swabs can't reveal DNA due to a small sample size, while other labs claim they can detect a person's DNA from their skin cells on the grip of a pistol or a door handle they touched. Regardless of the size of the sample, some labs can't get DNA because of the age of the sample taken at the scene months or years ago, while others want to tell us what diseases Egyptian Pharaohs suffered, based upon DNA taken from their teeth. Sorry, I don't buy that, not when someone's life or liberty is at stake.

A fingerprint is pretty much the same regardless what examiner is evaluating it, but DNA matching is far too dependent upon the equipment, experience, and expertise of the lab doing the testing. Of course, there's also the threshold question whether the entire concept is viable regardless of the ability of the individual lab.

I don't want guilty people to avoid conviction anymore than the next guy, but I think we rely too much upon unproven science when we use so-called DNA matching.

Chas.

There are certainly wide variations in the capabilities of different laboratories. Not all of them have the proper equipment to replicate enough fragments of DNA in order to perform such tests. And all of that will depend on the viability of the white blood cells in the sample to begin with or nucleus in whatever cells that are recovered. If they have denatured or lysed prior to collection and are unable to be properly preserved then nothing can be done anyway.

All in all, it's a fairly simple process if you have a good sample to start with. I was doing these kinds of tests in a student laboratory with basic equipment up at UNT back in the middle 90's before the O.J. trial.

What happens to all of those blood samples that the police are allowed to take now, in Texas, if one refuses to take a breathalyzer? Are they kept by any government agency? If they are just left to the laboratory, they will likely be tossed before the end of that shift.

DNA has the potential to clear the innocent and prosecute the guilty
National standards are needed for DNA tests and strict procedures concerning
how the samples are taken and the chain of sample custody.

The samples should be kept only by the FEDs and law enforcement should
only be given the data they need for a specific incident.

You trust the FED's more than locals? You're much more trusting than I.