Romney Supports Her Submitting DNA: Ron Paul Should Make A Statement

[Unknown.User]

..

..

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[TrishW]

Just speaking for myself... I don't have a problem with it. Maybe I don't completely understand.

It appears to me, they are now going to collect DNA from people who commit felonies, or have committed them in the past and are still on probation.

It will help to solve crimes happening now and in the future.

It may also bring closure to victims, and solve crimes from the past.

IMO It is science at its best. We should use it. Liberty? Since when do we afford felons all their liberties. We lock them up, we make them report in. Sometimes we even kill them

I see this as a way to solve crime, but even more than that... a possible deterrent to future crime.

The liberty movement will be taking a step backward if it speaks against the police using science to fight crime.

 

[TrishW]

Sorry guys, I'm going to go back and re-read this. Are you saying it applies to petty crime? Traffic tickets? Over due library books?

 

[TrishW]

OK... I went back and re-checked The law only applies to felonies.

Failure to return a library book is a misdemeanor.

I stand by my approval of Romney (in this one instance)

 

[VIDEODROME]

The problem is that this is almost like a huge Dragnet technique and I question the efficiency of dragnets.

TrishW has a point and I think there is a middle ground here. I think DNA typing for what might be consider "minor felonies" is a waste of money and resources. I don't think sampling DNA is exactly a cheap process.

However, for any violent felon taking their DNA makes sense and is more efficient.


I mean what if you take it to the most extreme example and you just automatically have everyone's DNA. Then at a crime scene you know everyone who was there by scooping up DNA samples. Maybe you track down all kinds of people just because they happened to have walked through that scene. I would equate it to a situation where doctors give you multiple tests that you really don't need in diagnosing a problem. There is a tendency to think more technology will lead to more efficient crime solving but in someways I think the opposite is true.

 

[LibertyEagle]

They shouldn't be forcibly taking people's DNA for ANY reason.

 

[jkr]

I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

 

[TrishW]

I already received a bad rep for my opinion, but I'm sticking by it.

What is a petty felony? There is no such thing.

A person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime is known as a felon. In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

This law is not about library books. It upsets me that the senator in the article is misleading us by applying the law to a late book.

 

[TrishW]

They shouldn't be forcibly taking people's DNA for ANY reason.

All 50 states require DNA samples from convicted sex offenders. You disagree with this?

 

[VIDEODROME]

They shouldn't be forcibly taking people's DNA for ANY reason.

This is probably just a swab in the mouth and not any more invasive then say......taking finger prints.

Otherwise the main difference is the expensive lab work.

I still think TrishW has a point if this is applied to just convicted felons.

 

[RickyJ]

I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

You aren't, but they won't stop treating you like one because they consider all of us animals. "They" being the cult that can't be talked about or you are instantly branded a hate monger.

 

[invisible]

The average person commits 3 felonies a day, does this mean DNA should be taken from everyone as a matter of course? Sure, first they'll want DNA from people charged with a felony. Next thing you know, they'll want DNA or other biometric info from anyone who wants to travel by air, get a driver's license, or from newborn babies right? Oh, wait.
How were we ever able to punish felons properly before DNA tests existed? To argue that DNA collection is necessary for law enforcement is to make the argument that we were never able to solve crimes and punish felons before DNA tests existed. The only "good" use of DNA with regards to crime, and the only use of it that should be allowed, is for an accused person to WILLINGLY submit a DNA sample to prove that they are innocent.
I'll stand with LE against yet another police state apologist until AF and Pete arrive.

 

[r3volution]

the fed's have been doing this to felons for almost 10 years now .

 

[affa]

Just speaking for myself... I don't have a problem with it. Maybe I don't completely understand.

It appears to me, they are now going to collect DNA from people who commit felonies, or have committed them in the past and are still on probation.

It will help to solve crimes happening now and in the future.

It may also bring closure to victims, and solve crimes from the past.

IMO It is science at its best. We should use it. Liberty? Since when do we afford felons all their liberties. We lock them up, we make them report in. Sometimes we even kill them

I see this as a way to solve crime, but even more than that... a possible deterrent to future crime.

The liberty movement will be taking a step backward if it speaks against the police using science to fight crime.

I hope one day you wake up and realize the government having a monolithic database with our data in it is a bad idea. Felons today, babies tomorrow, everyone alive eventually.

We got through a couple thousand years without need for such 'crime fighting techniques', i'm sure we can do without.

 

[TrishW]

The average person commits 3 felonies a day,

say .. what????

Where do you live. I'm from St. Louis and we ain't that bad!

I have never committed a felony. You do know we are talking about crimes that can lock you up for at least a year?

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well I suppose the government could've fingerprinted all citizens which with today's scanner technology I imagine that would be even cheaper then typing everyone's DNA. So far I don't really see that happening.

 

[TrishW]

I hope one day you wake up and realize the government having a monolithic database with our data in it is a bad idea. Felons today, babies tomorrow, everyone alive eventually.

We got through a couple thousand years without need for such 'crime fighting techniques', I'm sure we can do without.

Then you should have been awake a long time ago. We can't just knock the idea now that Romney is enacting it. All 50 states have it to some degree already on the books. At least 27 states have the same law that Romney is going to sign.

I give little respect to the slippery slope argument that you promote. If we all thought like that, there would be no punishment for crime, no laws, nothing. Just complete freedom. If that is who we really are.... then I am not one of you.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I bet it's a felony if you cut one of those tags off a mattress.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

nuff said!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9tP9fI2zbE