Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search

Do you think DNA could be mismatch - come from wrong people or twin people?

What is pros and cons about DNA?
 
Good! They are going to free up more innocents from prisons! I think it is much fairer that way.

DNA itself has its own advantage, it is impossible for criminals to walk away from crime scene squeaky clean.
 
Its ultra rare, it is equivalent to winning mega lotto. Because DNA has more information in it than fingerprints offers.

Im sided on Supreme court decision, I think they made right decision.

Foxrac said:
Do you think DNA could be mismatch - come from wrong people or twin people?

What is pros and cons about DNA?
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Its ultra rare, it is equivalent to winning mega lotto. Because DNA has more information in it than fingerprints offers.

Im sided on Supreme court decision, I think they made right decision.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've very wrong on this. In fingerprinting, it depends on numbers of points. The more points they use for matching, the more accurate it is but there's no standard for this... therefore flawed. that's why in court - a defense lawyer will ask how many points match. If it's 5... comical. If it's 12.... you're screwed.

DNA is no different from fingerprint analysis. it depends on type of analysis and methods they use. To rely solely on DNA as evidence.... it can lead to flawed court process. In order to have an incredibly accurate DNA match - it requires a large amount of DNA to work with and you don't get that in most crime scenes. You'll find a piece of hair... or a tiny amount of saliva... or couple of blood drops... most forensic investigators use a different method that uses a small amount of DNA which is.... less accurate.

DNA obtained from hair or semen or blood drop or etc is not exactly the same. Very easy to end up arresting wrong family member or twin.

Look at OJ Simpson. The DNA evidence was garbage.

from the article
Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created. About 13 individual markers out of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect's DNA. That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person and, officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics.
Click to expand...

there you go. flawed.
 
diehardbiker said:
Good! They are going to free up more innocents from prisons! I think it is much fairer that way.

DNA itself has its own advantage, it is impossible for criminals to walk away from crime scene squeaky clean.
Click to expand...

not really.

DNA will only tell you who was there... not when. if you went into a woman's bedroom two months ago before she was murdered to fix a router... your DNA will be found there and you would be treated as a suspect. in fact.... I wouldn't be surprised if you were charged with murder if your DNA was the only one found in the room.

see?
 
I think dna is fine as long as they remove that info if you're found innocent at trail but i doubt they do.
 
Jiro said:
I'm afraid you've very wrong on this. In fingerprinting, it depends on numbers of points. The more points they use for matching, the more accurate it is but there's no standard for this... therefore flawed. that's why in court - a defense lawyer will ask how many points match. If it's 5... comical. If it's 12.... you're screwed.

DNA is no different from fingerprint analysis. it depends on type of analysis and methods they use. To rely solely on DNA as evidence.... it can lead to flawed court process. In order to have an incredibly accurate DNA match - it requires a large amount of DNA to work with and you don't get that in most crime scenes. You'll find a piece of hair... or a tiny amount of saliva... or couple of blood drops... most forensic investigators use a different method that uses a small amount of DNA which is.... less accurate.

DNA obtained from hair or semen or blood drop or etc is not exactly the same. Very easy to end up arresting wrong family member or twin.

Look at OJ Simpson. The DNA evidence was garbage.

from the article


there you go. flawed.
Click to expand...

You right and a big problem is people on jurries think its like the show csi and dont really understand it.
 
Jiro - Do you agree with US Supreme Court ruling on DNA testing without need warrant?
 
Jiro said:
no
Click to expand...

Oh I see, I found your post to be extremely interesting and I don't have any position on US Supreme Court ruling for DNA without warrant because I wasn't sure if it is good or bad.

Your explanation help me to clear up any confusion.
 
Foxrac said:
Oh I see, I found your post to be extremely interesting and I don't have any position on US Supreme Court ruling for DNA without warrant because I wasn't sure if it is good or bad.

Your explanation help me to clear up any confusion.
Click to expand...

I would be totally fine with this if America has very strong privacy laws but we don't... therefore I don't support this.
 
Even though your right but still DNA is more accurate than finger prints. If few strands of DNA on the crime scene ground, then it is comical but if considerable amount of DNA found on pool of blood mixed between the victim and the accuser then there is serious argument. The procedure is pretty much like fingerprints when it comes to using DNA.

Same if somebody rapes and cums in, DNA is much accurate that way than finger prints and the condition for that DNA is that victim must go to emergency room and have the evidence immediately collected. But if victim wait too long, then the evidence is moot so is DNA involved.

Timing is everything.

Yeah, I know OJ Simpson case. I still see it comical because whoever collected evidences failed to process these evidences properly.

Jiro said:
I'm afraid you've very wrong on this. In fingerprinting, it depends on numbers of points. The more points they use for matching, the more accurate it is but there's no standard for this... therefore flawed. that's why in court - a defense lawyer will ask how many points match. If it's 5... comical. If it's 12.... you're screwed.

DNA is no different from fingerprint analysis. it depends on type of analysis and methods they use. To rely solely on DNA as evidence.... it can lead to flawed court process. In order to have an incredibly accurate DNA match - it requires a large amount of DNA to work with and you don't get that in most crime scenes. You'll find a piece of hair... or a tiny amount of saliva... or couple of blood drops... most forensic investigators use a different method that uses a small amount of DNA which is.... less accurate.

DNA obtained from hair or semen or blood drop or etc is not exactly the same. Very easy to end up arresting wrong family member or twin.

Look at OJ Simpson. The DNA evidence was garbage.

from the article


there you go. flawed.
Click to expand...
 
It's not good for the general law abiding citizens of the US, but it is good for criminal investigations. It means giving the law agencies (the government) more power and less privacy for the citizens.

It also (most likely) will put all suspected people's DNA in state or federal dna databanks. That means regardless if they actually committed the crime or not, a suspected person's dna is now in a databank to be used for future purposes. See virginia's databank: VA DFS - DNA Databank Statistics

It also means more work for law agencies - see attached. This area of problem is called "dna backlogs" due to the rising records requested for dna evidence.
 

Attachments

  • b1.jpg
    b1.jpg
    77 KB · Views: 3
  • b2.jpg
    b2.jpg
    59.3 KB · Views: 2
  • b3.jpg
    b3.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 2
diehardbiker said:
Even though your right but still DNA is more accurate than finger prints. If few strands of DNA on the crime scene ground, then it is comical but if considerable amount of DNA found on pool of blood mixed between the victim and the accuser then there is serious argument. The procedure is pretty much like fingerprints when it comes to using DNA.

Same if somebody rapes and cums in, DNA is much accurate that way than finger prints and the condition for that DNA is that victim must go to emergency room and have the evidence immediately collected. But if victim wait too long, then the evidence is moot so is DNA involved.
Click to expand...

Someone can also plant dna evidence of someone who has never done something. Like if someone had samples of your blood, hair, skin or semen and planted it at the crime scene - you can be suspect based on that alone if the investigators are crappy. DNA can't always prove a crime, it is to prove the presence of a person by evidence.
 
This applies only on suspect with very serious charges. It is not like if one gets caught in wal-mart doing shoplifting and have them swab for DNA, this one won't happen.
 
I am aware of this, but do we allow innocent serve time in prison? Also, there is attorney out there to defend the accusers.

naisho said:
Someone can also plant dna evidence of someone who has never done something. Like if someone had samples of your blood, hair, skin or semen and planted it at the crime scene - you can be suspect based on that alone if the investigators are crappy. DNA can't always prove a crime, it is to prove the presence of a person by evidence.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Even though your right but still DNA is more accurate than finger prints. If few strands of DNA on the crime scene ground, then it is comical but if considerable amount of DNA found on pool of blood mixed between the victim and the accuser then there is serious argument. The procedure is pretty much like fingerprints when it comes to using DNA.

Same if somebody rapes and cums in, DNA is much accurate that way than finger prints and the condition for that DNA is that victim must go to emergency room and have the evidence immediately collected. But if victim wait too long, then the evidence is moot so is DNA involved.

Timing is everything.

Yeah, I know OJ Simpson case. I still see it comical because whoever collected evidences failed to process these evidences properly.
Click to expand...

so what if a murdered woman had a sex with ex-bf prior (sympathy sex or whatever) and a rapist used condom?

there you go.

plus....... my friend told me this crazy story. his friend had a sex with this girl but she is crazy because she totally fell for him and saved the condom to put his semen inside her to get pregnant. now what if a woman is very vindicative and claimed rape? there you go.

DNA profiling is not a magic science. if conviction is solely based on DNA evidence... then we're screwed.
 
diehardbiker said:
I am aware of this, but do we allow innocent serve time in prison? Also, there is attorney out there to defend the accusers.
Click to expand...

huh? I don't understand your question.
 
diehardbiker said:
This applies only on suspect with very serious charges. It is not like if one gets caught in wal-mart doing shoplifting and have them swab for DNA, this one won't happen.
Click to expand...

not really.
 
Back
Top