NY Governor Wants To Expand DNA Database

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."

DNA is a double edged sword

[Nichotin]

While there are some very clear benefits of using DNA as evidence in some cases, it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people. Leaving false DNA evidence is much easier than copying someones fingerprints. A couple of kilos of cocaine planted in someones apartment, with a piece of hair, can in some jurisdictions land people in jail for a long time. It is somewhat the same dillemma with electronic evidence. Some real criminals are caught using historic location data or credit card date. At the same time, if you are well aware that this sort of evidence is taken seriously, you can also use it to create your own alibis which can make investigators rule you out as a suspect in the first place.

This is just a concern regarding the part about "He says it would help to both solve crimes and clear people who were wrongly convicted.", because I think someone might be wrongly convicted BECAUSE of the new use of DNA evidence. I don't really like the idea that you should collect DNA because of small crime in the first place, and even though there might be some benefits, this certainly weighs against (even though some might be found innocent).

Re:DNA is a double edged sword

[Compholio]

While there are some very clear benefits of using DNA as evidence in some cases, it can also be deliberately misused to purposefully frame people.

Yeah, just wait until the crooks catch up and start using DNA synthesis to frame people without even having access to their DNA (or just sufficiently contaminating a crime scene to make DNA evidence useless). You may not be able to recreate someone's entire DNA, but you can recreate enough of it to fool the "fingerprint" in the database.

Re:I got no problem with this.

[Joe U]

Criminals gave up their rights when they committed a crime.

Darn right, and I've solved the budget problem as well.

I suggest parking tickets and jaywalking be the threshold for being added. Wait about 5 years, then start doing DNA tests on litter, which will have fines raised up to $250 per item.

Think about it, NYS could mass-fine millions of people a day! Dropped that cigarette butt on the ground? $250! Chewing gum? $250. Drink container that fell out of a garbage can that hasn't been picked up in a week? $250.

Heck, raise the fine to $500 and jail people who don't pay.

Re:NYC Governor?

[h4rr4r]

For the sake of sanity?

Honestly, and I say this as a guy who regularly visits NYC should be in it's own state or maybe with Jersey.

Re:DNA is a double edged sword

[joe_frisch]

I think there are a couple of reasons we haven't seen this yet (as far as I know). DNA evidence is most useful in violent crimes (doesn't help much with securities fraud). I expect violent crimes are in general perpetrated by less educated and less sophisticated criminals. (of course there are exceptions). Also, DNA evidence so far is mostly used as a back-up to other evidence. If it becomes more important I think we will see more faking / framing.

Same argument applies to cell phone tracking. As this is used more by law enforcement I expect we will see various hacks on cell phones to mis-report locations, or to appear as a different phone.

Re:Question: how is this different from other data

[steelfood]

You forget the important thing: It moves with the person, and independently of the person.

Someone mentioned it's like a fingerprint. A clean fingerprint can place someone at a certain location with a high degree of accuracy.

DNA cannot do even that, except under very specific circumstances. Despite it being treated as direct evidence by law enforcement, it's circumstantial evidence at best.

Re:NYC Governor?

[Anonymous Coward]

To boot, New York might be one of the only states it means anything in anymore.

New York City is already so powerful it influences every state in United States and the world, much less Albany. (Smoking laws, food laws, roads etc. etc.)

Most people do not even realize how large New York state is or that it even exists, it's pretty much you are from "New York City" or nobody has a clue. Even "New Yorkers" reference the rest of the state as "Up State", thats pretty general when your dealing with the 27 largest state in land mass and largest in population by far.

Only problem is try living on a 420 dollar a month unemployment check when you live in NYC and its rated for the state!!

Right to remain silent

[somenickname]

If I have the right to remain silent, do I also have the right to refuse giving my DNA away? IANAL but if I have the right to not speak so as to not incriminate myself, why wouldn't I also have the right to not have my blood drawn (or mucus swabbed) so as to not incriminate myself?

I don't live in New York but, I'm often there. If an officer there wanted to take a sample of my DNA for an offense such as speeding, I'd refuse. If he persisted, I'd try to invoke Miranda Rights. If he persisted after that, I'd fight back as he tried to take the sample, recover for a few months in the hospital after he beat me senseless and then sue for police brutality. Essentially, that's what it's going to take to get this law overturned if it gets passed.