NY Governor Wants To Expand DNA Database 169
crimeandpunishment writes "If Governor David Paterson has his way, New York would take DNA samples from even the lowest level of criminal, doubling the state's DNA database. He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted. New York would become the first state in the country to do this. Currently DNA isn't collected in most misdemeanors. The plan is getting lots of support among law enforcement, but the New York Civil Liberties Union says there are questions about privacy."
By what perversion of logic? (Score:5, Informative)
How is this supposed to clear the wrongly convicted?
If you are wrongly convicted, you wont have much issue providing your own DNA to get free.
This has only a few applications:
With current technology a matching genetic pattern can be generated. This would make a great tool for acquiring genetic patterns for the fabrication of evidence and false convictions.
Even without such fabrication, genetic evidence can be abused to implicate someone that just happened to have passed through the location of a crime days, weeks or months before the event.
If this bothers you, look at the US House (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NYC Governor? (Score:4, Informative)
As a New Yorker, I've never quite understood why Albany is the capital and not NYC.
New York city has some great things, but they're merely the occasional nut in the turd that is the main course. Have you ever seen a sitcom on TV? Most of them take place in New York, and most of them feature annoying, self-absorbed douche bags like Ted Mosby.
Re:And then the crackdown on jaywalkers (Score:5, Informative)
Problems are obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Crooks can just salt the scene of the crime with DNA not their own.
DNA tests are not quick, either - forget what you have seen on TV. The FBI backlog is overwhelming [propublica.org], as it is for State labs in most cities. DNA evidence collected at a crime scene is likely not to be analyzed before the trial date.
New York City doesn't have the money to do this, anyhow. The cost would be exorbitant, even with a balanced budget.
Re:I got no problem with this. (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously you are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights.
Re:Question: how is this different from other data (Score:4, Informative)
The collections (real-life) I've seen don't need blood. They just swab the inside of your mouth.
Re:Question: how is this different from other data (Score:3, Informative)
GP didn't ask how it was different from fingerprints. Having said that, DNA conveys information that fingerprints do not. Fingerprints can't be matched against your relatives, nor do they reveal information about a person's genetic makeup. Finally, fingerprint collection is less invasive than DNA collection, especially when DNA is obtained via needles.
Re:NYC Governor? (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, the reason why NYC isn't the capital of NY is because when the capital of NY was chosen NYC was already the capital of the US. (Obviously they switched it later.)
Re:By what perversion of logic? (Score:2, Informative)
How is this supposed to clear the wrongly convicted?
If you are wrongly convicted, you wont have much issue providing your own DNA to get free.
This has only a few applications:
With current technology a matching genetic pattern can be generated. This would make a great tool for acquiring genetic patterns for the fabrication of evidence and false convictions. Even without such fabrication, genetic evidence can be abused to implicate someone that just happened to have passed through the location of a crime days, weeks or months before the event.
The theory is that if the person that actually committed the crime has a DNA sample in the system already then you will never be convicted in the first place. Or if you have already been convicted and they later get a sample that matches, from the newly expanded reasons for taking a sample, you are set free. This has already happened several times in rape cases in California. The individual was convicted even though the DNA was not a match. Then years later they take a DNA sample on an unrelated case, it matches the DNA from the previous case and they let the innocent guy out of jail.
Re:And then the crackdown on jaywalkers (Score:3, Informative)
Nightmare (Score:4, Informative)