Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-12-2008, 08:09 AM   #1 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Expanding Criminal DNA Database = Infringement on Privacy?

Quote:
View: Rape victim pushes for expanded DNA database
Source: CNN
This post created with FASS

Rape victim pushes for expanded DNA database
Mon, 12 May 2008 11:42:07 EDT
by Kelli Arena and Kevin Bohn


Abstract: "Maryland is joining a dozen other states in expanding its database, and walking straight into controversy. To supporters, building DNA databases with samples from the unconvicted is no different from collecting fingerprints. Critics say it's a complete violation of civil rights."   click to show 
This news article struck me as important. Crime, rape, and murder is not to be taken lightly. It is difficult for me to make a decision about whether or not this is an infringement on personal privacy. My gut instinct tells me, "No, it is not." However the article brings up a very good point of this information being used for non law enforcement purposes. I am sure this will be prosecuted but how well will such an infraction be enforced? I then remind myself that if a company was going to find out about some personal information of a person, they have many other means to find such things out: insurance/medical records, blood/hair donations, (for men) semen samples, previous confidential employment records.

At the moment I think this is a good idea to help investigate crime. If one has been arrested, then the DNA should be collected. If one is innocent, this DNA could not be used against one in the purposes of serving justice. I feel other means of obtaining this information outside of law enforcement exist already, therefore: how much damage will this actually do?
__________________

Last edited by Hain; 05-12-2008 at 08:15 AM..
Hain is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:20 AM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Committing a crime usually means that you're risking losing some of your rights (assuming you're caught). What I would prefer is that having your DNA included in this list was a part of sentencing, as it is a removal of the right to privacy. I would also say that if one is exonerated, they remove your DNA from the list.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:25 AM   #3 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
(1) What I would prefer is that having your DNA included in this list was a part of sentencing, as it is a removal of the right to privacy. (2) I would also say that if one is exonerated, they remove your DNA from the list.
  1. If one is sentenced, does that not include one was convicted? I thought, as per the article, the DNA of convicted criminals is collected and on file.
  2. Without question.
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:47 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
You're sentenced after being convicted. I too support taking DNA from convicted felons. It's not like fingerprints to me.

Only those convicted of felonies should have the DNA taken. We take their right to vote and their right to own a firearm away, and I don't take issue with those. Taking DNA is just a "modern day" adaption of the concept that once you've committed a felony - a grievous crime, usually involving violence - you're revoked your right to certain things. This just adds the "right to keep your DNA private" privilege to the list of things revoked.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:57 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
You're sentenced after being convicted. I too support taking DNA from convicted felons. It's not like fingerprints to me.

Only those convicted of felonies should have the DNA taken. We take their right to vote and their right to own a firearm away, and I don't take issue with those. Taking DNA is just a "modern day" adaption of the concept that once you've committed a felony - a grievous crime, usually involving violence - you're revoked your right to certain things. This just adds the "right to keep your DNA private" privilege to the list of things revoked.
while I'm 110% sure that the nanny staters/statists are going to get this implemented, all in the name of better law enforcement and safety, we must be very careful and demanding that the DNA sample can only be taken for very specific types of crimes, not just 'all felonies'.

not all felonies are grievous crimes, for example in Illinois a second conviction of driving on a revoked or suspended license is a felony. This is not a violent crime in any way shape or form and an order to obtain a DNA for file permanently sentence serves zero purpose since some felonies can be totally non-violent and non-offensive to others.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 10:01 AM   #6 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Good point, dk. How about DNA for violent crimes, rape, homicide, and molestation? Outside of that, I can't imagine needing it.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 10:41 AM   #7 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
If you are not convicted, then no, you shouldn't be in a data base.

DNA tells too much about you and will tell more and more as time goes on.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 11:41 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
not all felonies are grievous crimes, for example in Illinois a second conviction of driving on a revoked or suspended license is a felony. This is not a violent crime in any way shape or form and an order to obtain a DNA for file permanently sentence serves zero purpose since some felonies can be totally non-violent and non-offensive to others.
I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.

Research has shown over and over and over again that those willing to be "repeat offenders" of any crime, regardless of severity, are exponentially more likely to be incarcerated for more serious crimes later in life. The rule of thumb that "80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the population" holds very true in the realm of criminology. There's no direct (internet) link for a PHD dissertation in criminology I just attended, but off hand I remember that in a survey of 1000ish convicted for sexual assault, they'd collectively committed 3000 other crimes, ranging from simple battery to larceny.

Anyone who has committed the same crime (or range of crimes) two or more times is demonstrating a pattern of unlawful behavior which (in my eyes) means they will commit other crimes in the future. In this case, collecting their DNA makes absolute investigative sense.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 12:24 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Not sure what the laws in the US are - in Canada "serious" offences are called "indictable" for which a minimum 2 year sentence applies. IMO, people convicted of such crimes should be part of a DNA data-base.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 02:51 PM   #10 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
More people every day find law enforcement is best considered from a viewpoint suggesting that "everyone is a criminal".

Things like this should be expected by now. Realistically, this looks to me as the same basic concept as letting a cop search you without suspicion. It definately shows that people don't trust anyone any more, but not really against any civil rights.

I'd have to suggest that this information is public domain - just like our phone numbers, addresses, names, criminal records, etc.

Last edited by monokrome; 05-12-2008 at 02:56 PM..
monokrome is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 11:15 PM   #11 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.
I really do agree with this idea here. If you are a convicted felon, your DNA gets on file.



Quote:
Originally Posted by monokrome
I'd have to suggest that this information is public domain - just like our phone numbers, addresses, names, criminal records, etc.
I absolutely do not agree with this, if I read it correctly. Having one's DNA accessible by anyone of the public? This is exactly what we want to prevent. Anyone can then test your DNA for various diseases and suddenly you don't have health insurance anymore, and you don't know why.
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 05:22 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I explicitly didn't limit it to 'violent crimes', because I think that felonies like those above SHOULD qualify. If you're flagrant enough to drive and get caught TWICE for driving after losing your license, there's a good likelihood that you'll disregard other laws that are 'inconvenient', like DUI laws or kidnapping laws.
really? because i've done it many times and to this date have never kidnapped, raped, killed, or assaulted anyone. but since you think the likelihood of me doing so is relatively high, fuck my rights, do I have that right?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 05:26 AM   #13 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
really? because i've done it many times and to this date have never kidnapped, raped, killed, or assaulted anyone. but since you think the likelihood of me doing so is relatively high, fuck my rights, do I have that right?
Taking this personally reveals a misunderstanding of statistics; while you might not have, you must understand that your 'peers' (repeat offenders of lesser crimes) are exponentially more likely to commit more serious crimes. The fact that you haven't isn't a counterpoint.

And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one. Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 05:35 AM   #14 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one. Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.
Let's not forget that the DNA is legally required to be private- used only in the application of justice.
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 06:10 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
And I'm not saying "fuck their rights", only one.
you're also saying 'fuck MY rights'. I find that totally reprehensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Taking away the 'right' to privacy in DNA is a little bit different than taking away first amendment rights, for example.
so the 1st is more important than the 4th?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 06:59 AM   #16 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you're also saying 'fuck MY rights'. I find that totally reprehensible.
You were also saying, "Fuck you laws."


Quote:
so the 1st is more important than the 4th?
I do believe that the swift and proper (i.e. accurate) administering of justice is more important than your feelings being hurt, no offense. If you don't break the law, what will there be to worry about?
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:18 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:20 AM   #18 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.
The laws are in place to keep one safe from others, and even one's self. Just because one does not agree with a law, does not make that law any less important. If you feel strongly about this law, vote for law-makers that think as you do, or work to change the law yourself.
__________________

Last edited by Hain; 05-13-2008 at 07:22 AM.. Reason: added: or work to change the law yourself.
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:37 AM   #19 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
In cases where public safety and security are concerned, the Amendments can and have been suspended. For example, "Terry stops", where an officer is allowed to pat a suspect down for weapons or dangerous items, skirts the Fourth Amendment because they operate in good faith to ensure the safety of the public.

Likewise, the First Amendment right to speech and assembly can be temporarily suspended in order to prevent riots and violent demonstrations, when it can be shown that it 'serves the greater good' to temporarily suspend someone's rights.

In the case of felons, they've committed crimes so offensive or repetitive that we, as a country, believe they should have certain rights removed to prevent them from continuing to do harm. Someone who is arrested for twice driving under revocation represents a clear danger to society, I'm sorry. I can't really tell if you're saying that you've been arrested for such, but it demonstrates a CLEAR disrespect for the laws which bind the rest of society. In the only good survey I could find with a quick Google search, the average felon has TEN previous convictions before their felony conviction. That means that they've got a pattern of law-disregarding behavior. Whether this is driving under suspension or DUI, it's an indicator about that person and what they believe.

It serves the public to retain the DNA of convicted felons, as they, quite astonishingly, have a RECORD of past convictions and are likely to commit additional crimes if ever released from prison.

You might not like being lumped into a group who statistically patterns their behavior into a life of crime, but if you've been convicted of a felony it was your choice to join that group, not mine.

Suspending the rights of one to ensure the quality of life of the majority is an important part of governance. It should be exercised with care, and we should only revoke rights for the common good when someone has demonstrated the ability to commit felonious crimes or repeatedly disregard laws for the safety of the populace, like driver's licensing requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Our Great Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:37 AM   #20 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.
If you don't like a law, change it. Don't just break it like a common criminal.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:39 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
The laws are in place to keep one safe from others, and even one's self. Just because one does not agree with a law, does not make that law any less important. If you feel strongly about this law, vote for law-makers that think as you do, or work to change the law yourself.
totally wrong concept, in both theory and practice. A law does not keep anyone safe. One need only read the news on a daily basis to know this, i.e. murder is against the law yet people are killed every day. The simple belief that a law makes one safe should make that person totally ineligible to be released from the womb. A law is definitely not going to keep a person safe from their own self. seat belt laws do not force everyone to 'buckle up'.

If a law was made making interracial marriage illegal again, should we have to vote in new lawmakers to change it? or would the law be illegal on its front?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:40 AM   #22 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
EDIT: Saw your latest post:

Quote:
are ALL laws valid and enforcable? This is the problem we face when people think that 'laws' are what drive a society and that to violate any law makes one a reprehensible criminal, regardless of the constitutionality of said law.
Absolutely not. Violating laws does not make one a reprehensible criminal. I've broken many in my life. However, there is a very large gap between misdemeanor convictions and felony convictions. Petty theft is different than forcible rape, and I hope you realize that.

There are very few examples of "minor" crimes becoming felonies, and in the case of multiple convictions of "driving under suspension", a person *IS* a dangerous criminal. Cars are deadly weapons just like any other, and they must've had their license revoked in the first place for a very good reason.

As for the repeated thread-jacks, we're talking about DNA collection here, not interracial marriage laws or the effectiveness of laws in general.

You can't "accidentally" become a felon.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 05-13-2008 at 07:44 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
totally wrong concept, in both theory and practice.
We have laws in order for them to be enforced by enforcers. Does this make everyone safe instantaneously, no. Does it provide consequences once one is caught, yes.

Quote:
If a law was made making interracial marriage illegal again, should we have to vote in new lawmakers to change it? or would the law be illegal on its front?
I knew you were going to come up with some outrageous case where a law is not right. I don't consider it because that is not the issue. I'd rather discuss how laws against common sense or morality may come be created elsewhere.
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:48 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
In cases where public safety and security are concerned, the Amendments can and have been suspended. For example, "Terry stops", where an officer is allowed to pat a suspect down for weapons or dangerous items, skirts the Fourth Amendment because they operate in good faith to ensure the safety of the public.
There are very specific criteria to be met in order for a terry stop to be performed. I've read many cases where cops assume they can do this everytime, and have been proven wrong in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Likewise, the First Amendment right to speech and assembly can be temporarily suspended in order to prevent riots and violent demonstrations, when it can be shown that it 'serves the greater good' to temporarily suspend someone's rights.
this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
In the case of felons, they've committed crimes so offensive or repetitive that we, as a country, believe they should have certain rights removed to prevent them from continuing to do harm. Someone who is arrested for twice driving under revocation represents a clear danger to society, I'm sorry.
You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I can't really tell if you're saying that you've been arrested for such, but it demonstrates a CLEAR disrespect for the laws which bind the rest of society.
If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
only good survey I could find with a quick Google search, the average felon has TEN previous convictions before their felony conviction. That means that they've got a pattern of law-disregarding behavior. Whether this is driving under suspension or DUI, it's an indicator about that person and what they believe.
so how many laws have you broken today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
It serves the public to retain the DNA of convicted felons, as they, quite astonishingly, have a RECORD of past convictions and are likely to commit additional crimes if ever released from prison.
do we as americans now serve the state(people)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
You might not like being lumped into a group who statistically patterns their behavior into a life of crime, but if you've been convicted of a felony it was your choice to join that group, not mine.
as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Suspending the rights of one to ensure the quality of life of the majority is an important part of governance.
It's also one of the reasons that the founders rebelled against the english.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
ld be exercised with care, and we should only revoke rights for the common good when someone has demonstrated the ability to commit felonious crimes or repeatedly disregard laws for the safety of the populace, like driver's licensing requirements.
I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
If you don't like a law, change it. Don't just break it like a common criminal.
this from the person who advocates civil disobedience from time to time?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 05-13-2008 at 07:48 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:49 AM   #25 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
You can't "accidentally" become a felon.
I agree. Plenty of "accidents" that have landed me in situations I did not want to be in.
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:51 AM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
EDIT: Saw your latest post:



Absolutely not. Violating laws does not make one a reprehensible criminal. I've broken many in my life. However, there is a very large gap between misdemeanor convictions and felony convictions. Petty theft is different than forcible rape, and I hope you realize that.

There are very few examples of "minor" crimes becoming felonies, and in the case of multiple convictions of "driving under suspension", a person *IS* a dangerous criminal. Cars are deadly weapons just like any other, and they must've had their license revoked in the first place for a very good reason.

As for the repeated thread-jacks, we're talking about DNA collection here, not interracial marriage laws or the effectiveness of laws in general.

You can't "accidentally" become a felon.
you most certainly CAN become an accidental felon and to deny such is sticking your head in the sand.

bringing up different issues could be a threadjack, however, as it relates to individual rights being suspended or revoked does not make it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
I knew you were going to come up with some outrageous case where a law is not right. I don't consider it because that is not the issue. I'd rather discuss how laws against common sense or morality may come be created elsewhere.
then by all means lets make stupidity illegal. that should stop a lot of crime.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 05-13-2008 at 07:52 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:57 AM   #27 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
There are very specific criteria to be met in order for a terry stop to be performed. I've read many cases where cops assume they can do this everytime, and have been proven wrong in court.
But there were also instances where it was valid to perform a terry stop. Your point? It isn't like you are required to give your DNA for nothing. You have been found to have done something very wrong in the eyes of the law.


Quote:
this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?
I see this as the adult version of name calling. Why do you instantly propose that we are in favor of the extreme far case?


Quote:
You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?
If you keep up driving dangerously, or whatever it was you did, then yes.


Quote:
If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.
Freedoms come with a price. If with weren't for the consequences, what keeps you safe from anyone that has any free idea in their head?


Quote:
as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.
Again, a case not part of this argument.


Quote:
I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?
The license is for us to ensure you are safe to drive. I don't care that you feel you are safe.


I really dislike doing the "pick apart an entire post." Why do you like it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
then by all means lets make stupidity illegal. that should stop a lot of crime.
This isn't the topic of discussion.
__________________

Last edited by Hain; 05-13-2008 at 07:58 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 07:58 AM   #28 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
this is also wrong and it could also be further extended that the 'greater good' could be accomplished by surrendering all rights. would that work for you?
Do you counter every point by putting words in someone's mouth? No, that does not work for me.

Quote:
You're also completely wrong. Am I a danger to society?
Are you a convicted felon? If so, yes. I have no problem lumping ALL convicted felons into a "dangerous to civil society" group. If they have a problem with that, then they shouldn't be committing felonies. It's not a blind prejudice, because they've CHOSEN to commit the crime or crimes which result in felony convictions. The also, statistically speaking, shown a blanket disregard for society's rules.

Quote:
If the law is wrong, i'm not obeying the damn thing. LAWS do not bind society. FREEDOM binds society. this is the founders concept that the government and nanny staters have brainwashed you away from.
I'm sorry to destroy your Anarchist dream, but freedom only happens when we actively work to prevent those who would harm us from continuing to do so. There will always be people who victimize others, regardless of the scarcity or abundance of laws. The laws, however, exist to remove individuals from society when they begin to harm society's ability to live a free, SAFE life.

Quote:
so how many laws have you broken today?
At least three. I exceeded the posted speed limit, I failed to come to a complete stop, and I executed a left hand turn without having my turn signal blinking for 400 feet.

Quote:
do we as americans now serve the state(people)?
No. But most of us don't have a chip on our shoulder about the legislative system and how it's keeping you down.

Quote:
as time goes on and more crimes are converted to felonies, would society be safer? lets make every crime from murder to turning without using a signal a felony then.
Again, slippery slope / putting words in my mouth. Is there any indication that this is happening? What crime that was not previously a felony is now a felony?

Quote:
I will continue to disregard laws I feel are illegal, like license requirements, and have done so for over 10 years. To this date i've killed noone, hit noone, hurt noone, or endangered noone. what purpose does the 'requirement' serve? absolutely none. Why? because the 'license' doesn't MAKE me safer for society, my responsibility behind the wheel MAKES me safer. get the concept?
I don't even think I need to respond to this one. Most CIVIL individuals, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or Independent, man or woman, agree that licensing requirements for the operation of a motor vehicle are A VERY GOOD THING, considering the number of fatalities caused by MV accidents far exceeds those caused by any other violent crime. Your failure to understand this demonstrates you inability to understand the concept of a "greater good", and, in my opinion, demonstrates everything that exemplifies immaturity.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 05-13-2008 at 08:02 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:08 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
But there were also instances where it was valid to perform a terry stop. Your point? It isn't like you are required to give your DNA for nothing. You have been found to have done something very wrong in the eyes of the law.
so we actually can determine that there can be crimes that don't warrant DNA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
I see this as the adult version of name calling. Why do you instantly propose that we are in favor of the extreme far case?
because nannystaters generally do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
Freedoms come with a price. If with weren't for the consequences, what keeps you safe from anyone that has any free idea in their head?
it's been my experience that those intent on harming someone don't really care about the consequences anymore, DNA or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
The license is for us to ensure you are safe to drive. I don't care that you feel you are safe.
a discussion we've had before about how having a license doesn't make one safe. continue to ignore it, i see it doesn't work for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I don't even think I need to respond to this one. Most CIVIL individuals, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or Independent, man or woman, agree that licensing requirements for the operation of a motor vehicle are A VERY GOOD THING, considering the number of fatalities caused by MV accidents far exceeds those caused by any other violent crime. Your failure to understand this demonstrates you inability to understand the concept of a "greater good", and, in my opinion, demonstrates everything that exemplifies immaturity.
and, in my opinion, your FAILURE to understand that licensing requirements in no way, shape, or form guarantee a 'safe' drive demonstrates your inability to understand reality, or that a laminated government certificate does not make one a 'safe' driver. It's exemplary of everything that shows ones ignorance the real world and people.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 05-13-2008 at 08:12 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:15 AM   #30 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.
I see no problem requiring that individuals committed of these crimes should be required to provide their DNA on a successful conviction. These aren't 'accidental' things. Perhaps you're able to derive exceptional felonies like "habitual offender" felonies, but I believe that they, through their repeated disregard for the safety of others, are any different than those above.

Quote:
and, in my opinion, your FAILURE to understand that licensing requirements in no way, shape, or form guarantee a 'safe' drive demonstrates your inability to understand reality, or that a laminated government certificate does not make one a 'safe' driver. It's exemplary of everything that shows ones ignorance the real world and people.
No, but it's one good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's not a perfect solution, but it does serve a valid purpose. If you were a 'safe' driver, maybe you wouldn't have had your license suspended in the first place?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 05-13-2008 at 08:17 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:17 AM   #31 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
so we actually can determine that there can be crimes that don't warrant DNA?
I freely admit my ignorance in the terminology of the law, but I thought there were crimes not classified as felonies.

Quote:
because nannystaters generally do?
You have a point. I would consider the extremes if it served my purpose. Damn. However, I don't think these extremes apply as it is about making justice work faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
it's been my experience that those intent on harming someone don't really care about the consequences anymore, DNA or not.
So because you see no benefit towards the prevention of crime, there is no point in this policy. Like you pointed out, laws don't stop crime. Enforcers stop crime, or enforcers punish those that that have committed crimes. The object of the this act is to expedite the administration of justice.


Originally Posted by JinnKai
My point, but I will look into the threads that talk about driver's licenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
No, but it's one good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's not a perfect solution, but it does serve a valid purpose. If you were a 'safe' driver, maybe you wouldn't have had your license suspended in the first place?
Agreed. Had my license revoked... was my own damned fault.
__________________

Last edited by Hain; 05-13-2008 at 08:19 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:25 AM   #32 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
this from the person who advocates civil disobedience from time to time?
Civil disobedience is an act of desperation, and a last resort. If you've exhausted every other avenue available, then you disobey, but never violently. You have, however, many times proudly proclaimed that it's time for an armed revolution. You've said that you're willing to shoot and kill people if they took away your rights.

Civil disobedience is only for the non-violent. You're a strong gun proponent. These two ideologies are not compatible.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:26 AM   #33 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
@dksuddeth:
You aren't arguing why this extended DNA database is infringing on rights, but are repeatedly describing laws that you feel infringe on rights. This is how I read your posts.


original post   click to show 
__________________

Last edited by Hain; 05-13-2008 at 08:31 AM..
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:31 AM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
................


@dksuddeth:
You aren't arguing why this extended DNA database is infringing on rights, but are repeatedly describing new laws that would infringe on current rights. This is how I read your posts.
Initially, I did. There ARE some crimes that do not need to have this personal violation, simply because we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws and standards. I go with the new law approach because very few people bother to look at the big picture when they come up with an idea of improving society or justice. When a new law is written, it should not be written with the focus on how it will affect those it's written for, but how it COULD affect those it was never intended to. That is why I am so intense about them.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:34 AM   #35 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Initially, I did. There ARE some crimes that do not need to have this personal violation, simply because we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws and standards. I go with the new law approach because very few people bother to look at the big picture when they come up with an idea of improving society or justice. When a new law is written, it should not be written with the focus on how it will affect those it's written for, but how it COULD affect those it was never intended to. That is why I am so intense about them.
OK I can see this being a problem. I thought crimes considered to be felons were equal in all states. Is this wrong?
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:37 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
OK I can see this being a problem. I thought crimes considered to be felons were equal in all states. Is this wrong?
very much so. as i said before, in Illinois, second offense of driving while revoked is a felony, yet here in texas i'm only getting a class C misdemeanor ticket, no matter how many times i'm stopped.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:58 AM   #37 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
very much so. as i said before, in Illinois, second offense of driving while revoked is a felony, yet here in texas i'm only getting a class C misdemeanor ticket, no matter how many times i'm stopped.
To be fair, you only said, "In Illinois..." and did not compare it to Texas. If you compared them from the get-go, a lot of this from me would have been different. Granted, I would prefer Texas to have stricter driving laws, no offense.

I have always felt that when laws/rules are applied they should be applied universally- regardless of position, location, race, creed, color, etc. If felony laws change from state to state, then the overall DNA processing of "felons" is highly questionable. In my opinion we would need federal regulations that determine the criteria for when the DNA of convicted persons are to be taken for processing.



The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).
__________________
Hain is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 09:10 AM   #38 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).
The question is where to draw the line. If you're innocent, why can't the police search your house whenever they want? Why can't they break into your car? Why can't the listen to your phone calls and listen to your emails?

The answer is that this is unwarranted, literally. Privacy is a right. Privacy is a part of freedom.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 09:23 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
The main idea of this I still believe: if you are innocent, your DNA in the justice system can't bite you in the ass (unless someone abuses that system for purposes other than the administration of justice).
this sounds like the old adage 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. This is 180 degrees different than what rights, liberty, and freedom is about. as will has said, it is unwarranted. Not only is it unwarranted, but it violates YOUR right to privacy, no matter how small the intrusion.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 09:27 AM   #40 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.
I do not know of any state where some form of each of the above isn't a felony. DK brought up "habitual offender" in the case of driving under suspension because it is personally applicable and serves his agenda, but it is hardly the norm. When you say "felony", a reasonable person does not think of 'someone driving under suspension or revocation two or more times". If I were to be more explicit (since this "felon" argument is so pedantic), I support mandatory DNA submission when someone has been convicted of the felony version of any of the below:

aggravated assault and/or battery
arson
burglary
illegal drug sales (intent to distribute)
embezzlement
grand theft
treason
espionage
racketeering
robbery
murder
rape / sexual assault
sodomy
kidnapping
fraud

All of them demonstrate a disregard for person or property, and all of them indicate that any prosecuting you for future crimes you commit will be assisted by DNA evidence.

If the conviction is overturned on appeal or in light of new evidence, you have the right to request that your DNA be removed from the database.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 05-13-2008 at 09:32 AM..
Jinn is offline  
 

Tags
criminal, database, dna, expanding, infringement, privacy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360