Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 4:16:12 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

It is my sincere belief that most of those here who castigate this decision actually oppose the conviction (and possible execution) of thugs.


It is my sincere belief that you are spouting nonsense, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that you're only ignoring the counterpoints, provided you show some data to indicate that DNA fingerprinting makes a substantial difference in the ratio of convictions made to charges filed, and also cede that known methodological flaws in investigation should be fixed first (those being the low hanging fruits, with low cost, low intrusiveness, high benefit and unambiguous results).

IWYW,
— Aswad.

< Message edited by Aswad -- 6/3/2013 4:18:08 PM >

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:03:46 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it possible that there might be a reason that the founders thought it necessary to require a warrant to search a persons home?"

quote:

In theory, that is also true here.
However, they ask and if you refuse you are arrested on the spot for obstructing the police.
Then they search your empty premises for which they don't need a warrant.


That is not legal in the u.s.
That cops do it is common but a good lawyer can get the evidence supressed or have the verdict overturned on appeal on constitutional grounds.
That the cops would do all this and the person found to be not guilty the individual has virtually no recourse civilly against the cops for all it cost to defend himself.


Beg to differ. Warrantless searches, seizures, even arrests are perfectly legal under Probable Cause, which means in layman's terms you have to have a strong belief that something illegal is going on (Seeing a meth lab through an open window, for example). In practice, however, Probable Cause means "whatever the hell I want it to mean," to quote one NJ cop. Probable cause evidence is also generally not suppressed, either. That whole "a good lawyer can ... " line of reasoning fails unless you're willing to put out OJ-type money. Otherwise, lawyers sit on their asses and do nothing while you twist in the wind.


My point was that an "o.j." level lawyer would spank the prosecutions ass purple but it cost a ton of money...the cops win either way. They waste your time and money or put you in jail they do not give a shit which.

(in reply to FelineRanger)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:05:04 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.



This is nonsensical. DNA fingerprinting uses noisy segments with a high rate of mutation, not segments that have a major contribution to illness, precisely because the stuff that needs to work in our genome tends to stay constant across everyone, while the stuff that's irrelevant tends to mutate wildly (and, thus, makes a good identification aid).

IWYW,
— Aswad.



This should have been addressed to butch it is his post.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:07:29 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Interesting and unusual alignment of votes.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:08:38 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The array of justices on either side is really interesting.

Breyer in line with Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas in favor of warrantless DNA sampling at arrests. Against: Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Strange bedfellows indeed.

You beat me to the punch, Vincent. Intriguing alignment, no?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:11:27 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They are making a national database to take our guns away.  All republican.



_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:13:32 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Interesting and unusual alignment of votes.


I'm actually not terribly surprised by the alignment. One thing I noticed from my crim pro class was the very high number of cases that Scalia, a putatively conservative justice, sided against the "conservative" law-and-order argument, while his otherwise conservative colleagues voted with the police. Like him or hate him (and both are fair), he is pretty consistent in his approach to the making decisions.

Kennedy is obviously the wildcard, so there should never be any surprise, no matter how he votes.

Breyer was a bit of a surprise, but I don't remember his opinions all that well anymore. He doesn't have quite the flair that Scalia does, so he doesn't stand out as much.

With respect to the actual decision of the Court, I think it was a correct decision under the current precedent. It's a minimally invasive identification procedure, similar to fingerprinting. If one is permissible, so is the other. I'm always ready to debate the use of data from people who are arrested but not convicted...to me, that would raise Constitutional issues.

_____________________________

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.
-Woodrow Wilson

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:16:03 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I will give up a little well regulated privacy to save the lives of many. Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.

Butch


quote:

ORIGINAL Benjamin Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.



Sorry, Butch. My money is with old Ben, on this one.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



So what "liberty" are we giving up here?

The liberty to rape and not get caught?

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:27:55 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Doesn't the whole constitutional question of search go away if less intrusive ways of obtaining the same DNA data are used? Like getting a second order finger print from something a suspect touched, we now can do about the same with any surface a body touches, probably soon with the very air they breathe out. Certainly from dropped hair or the constant shedding of skin cells. It's just a bit more complicated for the police to do and verify as the DNA of the particular person.

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 6/3/2013 5:36:52 PM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:32:44 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

A DNA database will both exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty.


Kerry mullis says this is not true.

quote:


It is my sincere belief that most of those here who castigate this decision actually oppose the conviction (and possible execution) of thugs.


A sincere belief that is ignorant is still ignorant.

quote:

There is only one remotely feasible problem created by such a database: its use by insurance companies as a means of determining individual premiums (and I'm not sure I'm against that either, really).



This post seems to be in favor of the insurance companies being able to deny coverage...Would you also be in favor of casinos banning all winners?
quote:

Every other fear seems constructed of pure paranoia.

Perhaps a closer read of the objections might disabuse you of your ignorance?

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/3/2013 5:37:21 PM >

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:40:17 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		You mean you can't find the right not to say 'Ahhh' in the Constitution anywhere? I'm sure I saw it just the other day, right next to the words 'separation of church and state'.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I will give up a little well regulated privacy to save the lives of many. Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.

Butch


quote:

ORIGINAL Benjamin Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.



Sorry, Butch. My money is with old Ben, on this one.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



So what "liberty" are we giving up here?

The liberty to rape and not get caught?



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 5:56:39 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Doesn't the whole constitutional question of search go away if less intrusive ways of obtaining the same DNA data are used? Like getting a second order finger print from something a suspect touched, we now can do about the same with any surface a body touches, probably soon with the very air they breathe out. Certainly from dropped hair or the constant shedding of skin cells. It's just a bit more complicated for the police to do and verify as the DNA of the particular person.

Well at this point, the question of constitutionality is moot.

I`m for any means of helping law enforcement do their jobs better, which includes exonerating suspects and POIs so they can focus on the real bad guys.

The lunatic fringe-paranoia-bad-government-gonna-git-me thing, doesn`t sway me in the least......these are exactly the guys we should be looking at closely......

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 6:27:26 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

This should have been addressed to butch it is his post.


It was addressed to the thread, to clarify a common misconception about DNA fingerprinting. I didn't see Butch's post. I saw yours.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 7:42:35 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
I`m for any means of helping law enforcement do their jobs better, which includes exonerating suspects and POIs so they can focus on the real bad guys.


really? how about putting those gps ankle tracker thingies on every living person in the US, that would make crime incredibly hard to get away with.. ya know, since you are for any means of helping da cops..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 7:58:08 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
I`m for any means of helping law enforcement do their jobs better, which includes exonerating suspects and POIs so they can focus on the real bad guys.


really? how about putting those gps ankle tracker thingies on every living person in the US, that would make crime incredibly hard to get away with.. ya know, since you are for any means of helping da cops..


I think I answered that in the final part of my comment.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 7:58:12 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

yeah, I pointed that out with a similar article on another thread.. you can change your face with cosmetic surgery, you can alter/remove your fingerprints (chemically, etc repeating when they come back).. but your dna you can not modify.. and imo, the US govt's goal is to have all this info on every person living or visiting the US in its database..


Kerry mullis says that dna can not tell us who you are, dna can only tell us who you are not.
What kerry mullis says is that if your dna matches the dna at the crime sceene it does not mean shit.
What kerry mullis says is that if your dna does not match the dna of the crime sceene it means you were not the donor.



Is this the Kerry Mullis you are referring to? He must be good, he made #3 on the top 4 list here... http://www.cracked.com/article_18638_4-nobel-prize-winners-who-were-clearly-insane.html

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 9:21:27 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Sorry, Butch. My money is with old Ben, on this one.


Ben didn't have or know what cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, thalassemia, and Tay-Sachs disease were either. I'll bet he would have changed his mind if he did.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/3/2013 9:22:49 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 9:27:00 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ummm.. they might label you a "domestic terrorist" (the fbi did that in private correspondence to 1%ers/big biz about OWSers) and put you on a watch list? come by and spy on you.. question you, your neighbors, your friends, family, co-workers or business associates/clients, your doctors, etc..


Damn there goes my plan to conquer the world...again. Lets not go overboard...domestic terrorist indeed. I am not a sky is falling type I'm afraid... I'll deal with that if it would come about.

In the mean time I'll be thankful for the many lives saved by the DNA screening...and a few wrongly accused of crime exonerated.

I am not overlooking the possibility of abuse...and understand the concerns... I just believe the proper safeguards could be legislated.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/3/2013 9:39:47 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 9:29:27 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		You may address me directly Awad.. you have my permission. If not then kindly not reference my posts through a third party... By doing so you deny me the opportunity to respond properly with a rebuttal. I would hate to report you as you threatened me.

Perhaps someone who is talking with Awad could pass my request on to him...I would but he has me on hide and I'd rather not go through the mods... Cowardly I think.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/3/2013 10:07:04 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 9:39:21 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I am not overlooking the possibility of abuse...and understand the concerns... I just believe the proper safeguards could be legislated.

Butch


Yeah it's not like the government would ever abuse their power and go outside the scope of ... what? Right now, he's saying it?



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094