PDA

View Full Version : DNA Dragnets



Mota Boy
01-19-2005, 08:12 PM
You live in a small town, only a few thousand people. Everyone knows each other and the local diner begins frying up your order as soon as you walk in the door. It's the type of place where people leave their doors unlocked at night and their cars running when they get coffee on cold mornings.

An eleven-year-old girl gets raped and murdered in your town.

The police try to solve the case. All immediate suspects are tested to see if their DNA matches up, but they all come up negative. Time passes and the brutal murder remains unsolved. Suspicions settle in and make the town uneasy. The FBI has a solution - get DNA samples of every male in the town, relatively cheaply, by swabbing the insides of peoples' mouths. By law, these samples are voluntary

Assume that you're male. Would you ideologically approve or be opposed to this measure? If such a measure is passed, would you submit a sample? Now, would you answer be the same if you lived in Las Vegas and the victim was a forty-four-year-old hooker?

Betty
01-19-2005, 08:31 PM
Is this hypothetical?

Because way more fucked up things (murders, freak accidents, etc.) happen in small towns per capita than big cities.

Anyway, I think I would provide a sample. I would have nothing to lose and it would in a small way contribute to the killer being caught. If everybody thought that way, only a few people would not want to cooperate, and possibly one of them being guilty.

Edit: Oh, and I'd still do it in situation #2, even though it would seem less productive.

Not sure if I'm supposed to comment about who's life seems like the bigger deal... so I won't.

Mota Boy
01-19-2005, 08:39 PM
It's only partially hypothetical. The same situation happened in Germany a few years ago. 16,000 men submitted samples and the killer was pressured into submitting one himself by friends and family. There's an article in the latest issue of Time about a brutal small-town murder and local citzen's wariness to provide samples. Apparently, Americans are generally more suspicious about these types of activities than Europeans. The article didn't mention Canadians.

And you're not supposed to decide who's murder is worth solving more. It's just that humans are much more likely to resort to more extreme measures when particularly brutal crimes are involved. You can rally a suburban couple to a cause much better if your posterchild could be their daughter than if it could be someone harassing them on the streets.

I'll add my $.02 tomorrow.

NOAMR
01-21-2005, 12:03 PM
I think it's against privacy and freedom. When the government collects everyones DNA, you aren't free to do the slightest mistake, and you get a police state. When u commit a small crime, like just, I don't know, driving too fast or something (can't find a good example, cuz here you can't get DNA :D ), they can allready caught you, and you got no freedom and privacy anymore. Hm, other example: spraying graffiti on a bridge or something.

wheelchairman
01-21-2005, 12:45 PM
I'd be against it. Unless the police promise to destroy all records (they have done this in some instances). But even then I would be hesitant, I certainly don't want to be a part of any police database for as long as possible. Especially if I've committed no crimes.

I agree with NOAMR, which makes me shudder uncontrollably.

Betty
01-21-2005, 01:17 PM
I prefer to think that if there were a huge database thing it would be run by the ultra secret CIA-type agency that worked for the good of the country and knew everything and didn't GIVE A FUCK about somebody doing some graffitti... as opposed to the whole 1984-style scenario.

And it is certainly 21 years later than 1984 and the world isn't at all that way so I'm really not too concerned about it. You can't say that's automatically what would happen. I have a certain amount of faith in "the system".

Also, it's just DNA. That's different than having cameras/microphones/satellites everywhere, etc. I think that would be much more intrusive. They can only really collect DNA after the fact and from specific sources, so I don't see what the big deal is. That 1/1000000000 chance that you'll get accused of something you obviously didn't do? If my giving my DNA can help catch the hypothetical murderer of my sister/father/best friend, I'm all for it.

wheelchairman
01-21-2005, 01:33 PM
Despite the fact that the American government claims the cold war is over, the persecution of communists in all fields in the states is downright outrageous. I believe it was almost a year ago today that Rumsfield declared the RCP (A Maoist party) as a terrorist organization along with other communist parties.

It's common policy for all communist parties in the states to advice members to avoid all chemical substances like hash purely for the reason that sentences always come down harder on communists than the average white guy. It's even worse for members of the African Socialist Party.

And besides, a top-secret government organization like the CIA, is corrupt as fuck. The CIA generally only does mistakes. I mean their last greatest achievemnt was the rescue of hostages after post-revolution Iran. Which I would call one of their biggest fuck-ups. I would never trust a top-secret government organization with such material, for the sole reason that no government should have a top-secret organization, that is undemocratic down to the bone.

RXP
01-21-2005, 01:37 PM
I'd give a 'sample' fo sure as long as nurses are doing the handy work.

Betty
01-21-2005, 02:11 PM
Yeah, but if you're dealing with "top secret" things, the public just can't find out about it. It might not be something that has to be secret from our country, but if you let the citizens of that country know, then all other countries would be able to access the information as well. Also, something like DNA, you wouldn't want just anybody to have access to that information. Hence, the fact that it is secret protects the public. And also, I don't know much about the CIA, besides things I see on TV which are fake, but if it were top secret, wouldn't you not KNOW about a lot of the things they do anyway? Hence cannot say everything they do is bad and evil and wrong? I personally really have no idea. And I highly doubt you do.

wheelchairman
01-21-2005, 02:49 PM
We learn a lot about CIA fuck-ups through whistleblowing actually. Also documents become de-classified after x-number of years.

Any government that hides things from the people, is not of the people. That is just plain to see in my eyes. I find this to be in shining example, after the Bolsheviks took power, they published all secret papers of the Czar and Februarist Government, showing how they were leading the wool over the eyes of the people.

Betty
01-21-2005, 02:57 PM
I still think it can be necessary, and not in bad intentions.

But I suppose you would know better of so-called fuck ups if you have done your research on all of these declassified documents.

Izie
01-21-2005, 03:06 PM
We learn a lot about CIA fuck-ups through whistleblowing actually. Also documents become de-classified after x-number of years.

(Jesus)
Yeah that's one of the good things about the US, the freedom of information act (Although stuff does get destroyed and internally censcored). Isn't it like 30 years and then documents normally become declassified.

Izie
01-21-2005, 03:09 PM
But I suppose you would know better of so-called fuck ups if you have done your research on all of these declassified documents.

(Jesus)
These aren't fuck ups, but probably the most famous ones: Cointelpro (FBI) and Operation Ajax (CIA).
Referring to the CIA as good makes probably as much sense as for instance referring to Martin Luther King as a conservative.

wheelchairman
01-21-2005, 03:57 PM
From Iran and Guatemala (the first two CIA operations) onwards, there has been failures. It's rather tragic actually.

The FBI before it was reformed (way way back) was also on the same path. Now the FBI is just more or less useless.

I don't think there ever was a truly effective intelligence agency.

felix_leiter
01-21-2005, 04:39 PM
Yeah fuck DNA shit. Not until they catch me commiting a crime can the pigs have anything on me.

Mota Boy
01-22-2005, 10:43 PM
Out of 25 DNA dragnets conducted in America, I think that only one has resulted in the successful apprehension of the suspect. Personally, I see it as a dangerous invasion of privacy. To me, one of the most chilling comments about it is "I don't plan on raping anyone, so I don't see why not". It doesn't frighten me because I can't comprehend how an individual could get by without rape, but because it promotes a mentality of "As long as everyone obeys all laws at all times, we should have nothing to worry about."

I see the government as overstepping its jurisdiction and such things leading to a slippery slope (for instance a dragnet in Baton Rouge, LA turned up nothing, yet the men who submitted samples still have their DNA on file and are fighting to have it removed).


Yeah, but if you're dealing with top secret things, the public just can't find out about it.
This mentality also frightens me. Yes, I'm aware that the government needs to keep certain secrets, but to trust it as much as people who have this mentality often do is a bit beyond my comprehension.

Personally, I don't know. Ultimately, I see it as trading insecurity for insecurity - on one hand you're either allowing for the possibility that a killer is in your midst to keep you suspicious of your neighbors, or your allowing for the possibility that the government will be able to easily identify you if you're ever involved in any future crime. Now, perhaps I'm a bit sleazier than most and can more easily imagine myself committing a crime, but I admit that I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that not every crime is solved. I don't believe in all the laws in the books, and I believe that there are certain circumstances in which even laws in which I believe can be reasonably violated, and total government control of the citizens of a country is, to me, one of the greatest crime against man.

Betty
01-23-2005, 10:37 AM
The fact that most of these "DNA dragnets" are unsuccessful is definitely a strike against the idea. However, I'd imagine they weren't very successful because too many people didn't comply?

I don't know, I don't see why either understanding government secrets, or feeling like them having your DNA is not a big deal are scary mentalities. Honestly, what will be the big difference in my life? There ARE government secrets already. It's good that they become declassified after X number of years. In a perfect world you shouldn't have to have secrets. But some things will enable fraud, some things will enable terrorism, etc, etc. And no, I don't really plan to commit too many crimes. And the ones I don't agree with are mostly smaller ones. Regardless if I wanted to commit one, I'd just make sure not to leave DNA around. In the same way that you shouldn't leave any evidence around (which I'm sure is much easier said than done). Sorry boys! No rape/murders allowed.

Am I a nutcase in thinking this way? Like, I DO fear the 1984 big brother scenario, but I think that things can stop at DNA and not go into a slippery slope.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 11:04 AM
It's because I think you believe the current government works in your interests. I personally believe the current government works in it's own interests. And I know that the military establishment certainly works in it's own interests, I would say the armament during the cold-war was mainly brought on by the military leaders.

During demonstrations, like the protesting the inauguration, the police used increasing methods of violence against protestors (originally the police were supposed to be of the people were they not? Now I don't really think they are, and haven't been for a long time. The works of Huey P. Newton highlight this issue very well in the black community.)

And all of the CIA operations in Latin America and the Middle East and Asia and Africa, were never in the interests of the American people.

Also one can bring up cases like Fred and Ethel Rosenberg, parents, who were executed on the most tenuous of evidence brought forth against the government. There were also two anarchists killed in the midwest during the 20's who were executed with literally no evidence and so on and so forth.

Marion
01-23-2005, 12:55 PM
I would give a sample and it wouldn't bother me if they kept it on file. Cos I know I would never commit a crime and not give myself in to the police.

Das Werewolf
01-23-2005, 01:42 PM
I'd give a dna sample with no worries. Simply because in the mentioned situation I'd only be too delighted to see the real criminal get caught. Got to wonder though, especially about the people who would refuse to give a sample. Is it because they feel themselves able to commit such a crime or simply that they dont want their dna on record ( like the person who said they would but only if the sample was destroyed) so that they could avoid capture for other, perhaps, more serious crimes.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 02:00 PM
You both would've made very good hall-monitors if you accept all laws passed.

Das Werewolf
01-23-2005, 03:51 PM
I'm told I make a far better Hauptmann

JoY
01-23-2005, 04:02 PM
I've once held a passionate argument pro achieving DNA-samples in exact these type of cases, by force if necessary.

EVERY male should volunteer & cooperate. if someone doesn't, he has something to hide.

there are contracts, binding contracts, that say that no other information (as in genetical) shall be achieved from your DNA-code & that it won't be re-used in other cases. so there is no privacy issue here, unless the governemt & police would break such a contract, in which case you are in your right & it'd be justified, if you'd sue them. they can't even use your DNA in future cases, because it'd be illegally collected evidence & thus entirely worthless. how to say that in proper English? I wouldn't know, but I don't feel that's really necessary.

furthermore; there isn't any genetical information in the parts of DNA, that are used to make a match with. those parts are junk-DNA, that consist out of proteins & they tell absolutely nothing about your eye-, or haircolour, or if you'll die from a genetical disease in a year or two.

knowing this, there is no reason not to cooperate in such an investigation, unless you are guilty as fuck. or you don't want to cooperate with solving the murder/rape of another human being, which I'd find pretty fucking inhuman. & what would be the problem, if they WOULD use your DNA in other (future) cases? anyone planning to commit a crime, or two? crimes ought to be solved.

& NO, DNA-samples are goddam useless when it comes to spraying graffiti, or driving too fast. for the love of jaysus, do you spit around & jerk off while doing that?? out of the fucking carwindow??! if you take a piss against a wall with graffiti on it & lose a pubic-hair, do you really think that hair proves you were also the one, who put graffiti on that wall? DNA matching tests are only usefull in cases a hair, or body fluids are found either in, or on a victim, which means we're talking a bit more serious crimes.

Marion
01-23-2005, 04:12 PM
I've once held a passionate argument pro achieving DNA-samples in exact these type of cases, by force if necessary.

EVERY male should volunteer & cooperate. if someone doesn't, he has something to hide. there are contracts, binding contracts, that say that no other information will be achieved from your DNA-code & that it won't be re-used in other cases. furthermore; there isn't any genetical information in the parts of DNA, that are used to make a match with. those parts are junk-DNA, that consist out of proteins & they tell absolutely nothing about your eye-, or haircolour, or if you'll die from a genetical disease in a year or two.

knowing this, there is no reason not to cooperate in such an investigation, unless you are guilty as fuck.


Here here. Totaly agree. We had a murder in the town I used to live in and all males aged between 15 - 45 were asked for DNA. That is how they found the guy that done it.

JoY
01-23-2005, 04:15 PM
Here here. Totaly agree. We had a murder in the town I used to live in and all males aged between 15 - 45 were asked for DNA. That is how they found the guy that done it.
very, very very good. these things just -have- to be solved for god's sake. for everyone's sake. you don't want people with the ability to murder & rape others to walk the streets freely. that's just insane.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 04:20 PM
From my mindset, I do not believe that the government will always see me as a worth and equal citizen. Especially the American government, I want to be on their records as little as possible. And I certainly don't want them to have any DNA way of recognizing who I am, whether after I'm arrested or not.

And I certainly don't trust the government to keep any contracts, and as a prisoner in the US government, if they're willing to break contracts I certainly don't think my miranda rights would be respected.

That's what it comes down to, if I believed the government would always be a government of the people (which I don't think I'd ever people) then I'd have no problem with this.

JoY
01-23-2005, 04:26 PM
I'm blonde, naive & Dutch. I trust my government. yes, I find them incompetent & they generally do an incredibly terrible job at many things, but they are overal trustable. if there ever comes a time, that a policeman would knock on my door, after I commited something like selling illegal drugs & I just *know* they have nothing on me, except a DNA-test I did in the past to cooperate with another case.. then I'll make sure that'll be noticed in court & then I really know I have nothing to worry about. it'd be the dumbest mistake they could make, because if they do that, they'll give the one who's guilty a perfectly good reason to get away with it.

HornyPope
01-23-2005, 04:35 PM
I don't give a shit who murders who. If a man comes for my DNA, he better come armed to his teeth. And yes i'm totaly serious on that one.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 05:22 PM
won't go into the issue, I'll just say that I'll never give up my idea to any kind of government because I don't accept any government as legitimate and wouldn't want them having records of me. I wouldn't trust the American government, nor would I trust the Dutch government (the African tribes they slaughtered made the mistake of trusting the Dutch just the way Native Americans made the mistake of trusting British colonists). This DNA thing doesn't seem like a way of solving crimes, it seems more of a way to consolidate State power.

Betty
01-23-2005, 07:01 PM
Bella, I'm really glad that somebody has agreed with me on this one.

What I don't get is, regardless of how you feel about the government, WHY does it matter if they have your DNA or not?

HornyPope
01-24-2005, 07:48 AM
There are just some things you don't entrust a third party with, Betty. The less information on you in file, the less are the odds that it will come and bite you. Play it safe, I say.

Betty
01-24-2005, 04:22 PM
At what expense though?

Blah, maybe I'm just not paranoid enough.

Everybody's out to get you!!!

HornyPope
01-24-2005, 08:17 PM
At a risk of sounding like a complete selfish asshole (or is it too late already?), i'll come out blatantly honest: I don't care enough about bringing justice to the perpetuators of such horrendous crime to the point of risking my own privacy. Nor am I scared at the thought of having the murderers walk among me. Nop, sorry. Maybe if I experienced the dilema in first person i'd be more enclined to trade in my rationale for emotions, but strictly from a rhetoric point of view, I remain clinched in my desire to remain an enigma to anyone with the mandate to police me.

Betty
01-24-2005, 09:56 PM
Nah, I like that answer.