Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Breaking: Supreme Court OK’s taking DNA upon arrest [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)19. "Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Rapist Identified by DNA"
I wonder if that headline would attract different comments?
In 2003 a man concealing his face and armed with a gun
broke into a woman's home in Salisbury, Maryland. He
raped her. The police were unable to identify or appre
hend the assailant based on any detailed description or
other evidence they then had, but they did obtain from the
victim a sample of the perpetrator's DNA.
In 2009 Alonzo King was arrested in Wicomico County,
Maryland, and charged with first- and second-degree
assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. As
part of a routine booking procedure for serious offenses,
his DNA sample was taken by applying a cotton swab or
filter paper--known as a buccal swab--to the inside of his
cheeks. The DNA was found to match the DNA taken
from the Salisbury rape victim. King was tried and con
victed for the rape. Additional DNA samples were taken
from him and used in the rape trial, but there seems to be
no doubt that it was the DNA from the cheek sample
taken at the time he was booked in 2009 that led to his
first having been linked to the rape and charged with its
commission.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
182 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The DNA you leave in the trash is not necessarily personally identifiable...
truebrit71
Jun 2013
#48
When they have their eye on you, they have their eye on your drinking cup, or your
MADem
Jun 2013
#86
..and we all know that the cops never "accidentally" arrest the wrong person, right?
truebrit71
Jun 2013
#92
They can arrest the wrong person, but they can't make the DNA match if it doesn't.
MADem
Jun 2013
#93
But they will still have had their DNA taken and entered into a database...
truebrit71
Jun 2013
#105
Well, no more of a problem than to those who have fingerprints on file, or driver's license
MADem
Jun 2013
#106
I have no issue with someone voluntarily offering their DNA as a way to prove innocence...
truebrit71
Jun 2013
#118
When you have your driver's license photo taken, you've given up your rights too.
MADem
Jun 2013
#129
i'm not sure i'm bother by dna vs. fingerprinting per se. it's the method of collecting
unblock
Jun 2013
#7
less problematic than blood draws, though still a risk of infection or allergic reaction
unblock
Jun 2013
#34
"It's not possible to detect the presence of a disease-causing gene using this method."
MADem
Jun 2013
#109
If your DNA matches what's 'found' at a bomb scene, say, you're potentially a person of interest.
Octafish
Jun 2013
#8
We can let the government take our DNA, but we can't license and tag guns like cars.
onehandle
Jun 2013
#9
Hold him down and swab his mouth! But don't check on his gun. We might get in trouble. nt
onehandle
Jun 2013
#22
I can't wait to read Scalia's Dissent. That should be good. Dissent begins on Page 33 of PDF.
dballance
Jun 2013
#143
Uh-oh, it's one of those opinions where you must side either with Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
Nye Bevan
Jun 2013
#27
Because events prove them right? You DO know that different checks preceded this type?
WinkyDink
Jun 2013
#38
I've done the cheek swab thing to get on the bone marrow donor registry. I hated giving fingerprints
brewens
Jun 2013
#30
And you've been out protesting the collecting of fingerprints for the last few decades, right? (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2013
#54
Difference is - one is intrusive and removes something from your body
The Straight Story
Jun 2013
#59
Because fingerprints while personally identifiable are not useful for other info mining.
Fearless
Jun 2013
#174
I think this issue divides along Techie/Luddite lines.... I'm with the Luddites on this one!
reformist2
Jun 2013
#75
I suspect there will be a greater rush to get more people into the system based on DNA
Heidi
Jun 2013
#96
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent for himself and three liberal justices,
Agnosticsherbet
Jun 2013
#102
Well, folks... be sure not to leave your hairbrush on your work desk if you have enemies at work.
Zorra
Jun 2013
#110
It's called planting evidence in order to frame someone for a crime they did not commit.
Zorra
Jun 2013
#172
Why would they do that when there a hundred other easier (and faster) ways to
NYC Liberal
Jun 2013
#169