DNA Swabbing

[StoppingTime]

Recently the US Supreme Court has upheld a law (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite) which allows police officials to take a swab of your DNA when you are under arrest for a "serious offense.*" No proof is needed, in fact, the suspect may not have done anything wrong. Regardless, they can be arrested, swabbed, and if nothing really is wrong and they aren't convicted of anything, released.

*The Court did not (to my knowledge) specify what this was other than when someone would be taken to a police station in custody/for possible questioning.


So do you think this is Constitutional, and if you are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, okay? Should officers be permitted to swab you for DNA, and then put it in a national database, and possibly find links to other (cold) cases.

Please try and keep this civil and don't derail this thread.

[tovaris]

same as fingerprints...? Sort of. Moraly questionable...

[Origami]

I personally don't find a problem with it. Mainly as a record keeping measure though. I don't think certain cold cases should be allowed to be charged though, if this were to happen.

[Camazotz]

I know the Constitution, but I don't really know in what circumstances this would be beneficial/negative. Some people have brought up the argument that law enforcement could plant evidence, but I can't picture how that would work. In terms of legality, obviously DNA isn't mentioned, but I'm not sure how the Founding Fathers would feel about this. Until I hear about a huge uproar, I'm going to say that this is acceptable.

[SniperKing]

I think this may be beneficial for solving some cold cases, but not if that cold case relates to you... They shouldn't be able to take it without a warrant. Because who decides what the "serious offense" is. They will be swabbing here there and everywhere. No disrespect to their job though....

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I have no problem with this.

[britishboy]

Recently the US Supreme Court has upheld a law (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite) which allows police officials to take a swab of your DNA when you are under arrest for a "serious offense.*" No proof is needed, in fact, the suspect may not have done anything wrong. Regardless, they can be arrested, swabbed, and if nothing really is wrong and they aren't convicted of anything, released.

*The Court did not (to my knowledge) specify what this was other than when someone would be taken to a police station in custody/for possible questioning.


So do you think this is Constitutional, and if you are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, okay? Should officers be permitted to swab you for DNA, and then put it in a national database, and possibly find links to other (cold) cases.

Please try and keep this civil and don't derail this thread.

in Britian you have full DNA tests and fingerprinting, and thats for medium crimes and above, I think its a good thing

[Harry Smith]

We need it, I mean the reason to actually oppose it would be if your worried about your DNA being found on a crime scene. If your innocent you should have nothing to fear

[Human]

I don't think there's anything wrong, if you get arrested and they take it.
If it's for the greater good then why not

[Trace]

I've no problem with it. I think it's better, actually. I don't intend on committing any crimes any time soon, so I'm not affected by this, but in a way the criminal justice system is.. Overall, good.

[DerBear]

I guess its okay. I mean like fingerprints and other methods of gaining DNA its slightly morally questionable but I mean I guess if you're involved in a serious crime then it could help solve older, cold cases in which it could be a good thing.