MaddogCT Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I hope even the conservatives among us can see that this is going too far. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/10/cape.cod.murder.ap/index.html BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Civil rights advocates asked authorities Monday to stop collecting DNA samples from men in Truro in their investigation of a fashion writer's slaying. Calling it "a serious intrusion on personal privacy" that is unlikely to yield results, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts sent a letter to Cape Cod prosecutor Michael O'Keefe and Truro Police Chief John Thomas, urging them to end the DNA effort. In recent weeks, police have gathered DNA samples from hundreds of men in Truro in a renewed effort to solve the January 2002 slaying of Christa Worthington. Worthington, 46, was found stabbed to death in the kitchen of her isolated Truro home. When her ex-boyfriend discovered her body about 36 hours after she was killed, her 2 1/2-year-old daughter was found nearby, hungry and crying but unharmed. Worthington had sex shortly before her death, but despite the semen samples, police have not been able to figure out who the man was. "The mass collection of DNA samples by the police is a serious intrusion on personal privacy that has proven to be both ineffective and wasteful," said the letter from ACLU Executive director Carol Rose and John Reinstein, the organization's legal director. The letter raised concerns about statements from O'Keefe, who indicated that investigators would take note of those who decline a swab of the inside of their mouths. Mass DNA collection has been used to crack criminal cases in Europe, but in this country the technique has been used only sporadically. Authorities in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, collected DNA swabs from about 1,200 men in 2003 in an attempt to catch a serial killer. An arrest was eventually made, but authorities say it wasn't the result of the mass DNA effort. Investigators in Virginia and Nebraska have also done mass DNA testing, with little success. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Maybe I have just become used to intrusion by the goverment,I don't see it as a problem.I might question the waste of money on wholesale testing. IMO we will soon have a national DNA database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 This country is going to lose it's freedom because too many of it's citizens are chicken sh!ts. Trading freedoms for a greater sense of security is the road to disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I dont understand. People can still refuse to submit right? Where is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I dont understand. People can still refuse to submit right? Where is the problem? "investigators would take note of those who decline a swab of the inside of their mouths." You refuse and you are a suspect. That's the problem. Those that refuse to submit to an unreasonable search.....or viewed as suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 It doesnt say they are suspects, it just says they will note who refuses. I hope they do that. That way if the investigation eventually points to one of them, they will have a record to start from. If they came to my door, I'd refuse the test. But I certainly wouldnt expect them to say "Oh well, cross him off the list". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 It doesnt say they are suspects, it just says they will note who refuses. I hope they do that. That way if the investigation eventually points to one of them, they will have a record to start from. If they came to my door, I'd refuse the test. But I certainly wouldnt expect them to say "Oh well, cross him off the list". If it doesn't say, then it must not be. What was I thinking? This isn't police work, this is a shake down. You force everyone to allow you to over step your constitutionally given powers in terms of law enforcement via implied threat. You don't let us search you and we'll look real close at what you have been up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You can say that for anything. Where is the line between a "ahakedown" and a legitimate investigation? And who get's to determine where theat line is set? There is no invasion of privacy here Des. If you dont want to submit to the DNA test, you can refuse. Similarly, the police can knock on your door any time they want to and question you about a crime. You have the right to refuse that as well. But we DONT have the right to NOT be a suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well, one problem is the part where I used a different color. "Hey, Kilmer17 said no. Better start a file on that one." Ala...Hoover's FBI. (Hoover, who actually let a man spend 40 years in jail for a crime HOOVER KNEW he didn't commit.) Another is if we accept the authorities idea now, that you must submit to a DNA test simply because you live in a town where someone was murdered over two years ago, and nothing else, then in the future you may not have a choice. That is a problem. One more: ITS A WASTE OF MONEY!!!! IT DOESN'T WORK. Note the examples at the end of the article. DNA comparison works 100% of the time when you have a DNA sample and few real suspects. Then you compare DNA evidence to the suspects to ELIMINATE them. If one more are partial or exact matches then you concentrate your investigation on those suspects PS I hope all the men in the town refuse the test. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What happens when you refuse the DNA swab, and they start doing a background check on you or snooping into your private life? Obviously if you refuse, there will be repercussions of some kind. Otherwise, NOBODY will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 who gives a crap? You have the right to refuse, if you do, you are noted. Big fat hairy deal! I'm noted all over Nevada for one reason or another! What is the cost to those that refuse beyond a raised eyebrow of an investigator. If they are innocent of any crime, then nothing comes of it. If guilty, then one step closer to getting caught. If you were the parent of the murder victim, wouldnt you expect the police to turn over every legal stone? ACLU gets a little out of reality in stuff like this. They should focus on the real issues of abuse of rights rather than percieved inconveniences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 You can say that for anything. Where is the line between a "ahakedown" and a legitimate investigation? And who get's to determine where theat line is set? There is no invasion of privacy here Des. If you dont want to submit to the DNA test, you can refuse. Similarly, the police can knock on your door any time they want to and question you about a crime. You have the right to refuse that as well. But we DONT have the right to NOT be a suspect. Asking an entire town to submit to DNA tests and informing them that those refusing will be taken note of is very different then what you've written. This is not a case where the evidence lead them to your doorstep and you refuse to answer questions. This is a entire neighborhood being put under the microscope if they refuse to do the police's job for them. Also it's funny to see you argue "legitimate investigation" in a case where an entire town is asked to submit DNA samples. Clearly asking EVERYONE is not a great example of legitimate investigative work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas who gives a crap? You have the right to refuse, if you do, you are noted. Big fat hairy deal! I'm noted all over Nevada for one reason or another! What is the cost to those that refuse beyond a raised eyebrow of an investigator. If they are innocent of any crime, then nothing comes of it. If guilty, then one step closer to getting caught. If you were the parent of the murder victim, wouldnt you expect the police to turn over every legal stone? ACLU gets a little out of reality in stuff like this. They should focus on the real issues of abuse of rights rather than percieved inconveniences. Well f*ck it then, test everyone at birth and keep it all on file. Don't forget to note the gun that every american owns as well. You know....so the victims parents feel happy no stone has been left unturned. While you are at it, give us all little GPS chips so we can be found more easily. If you're innocent who cares! You wouldn't a criminal getting away would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Good grief. The entire town has NOT been asked to submit. Do you really believe that police should NOT make a note when someone refuses to submit? That would be poor police work. It doesnt say they are made a suspect, it doesnt say they have an FBI file started. It simply says those that refuse are noted. Well DUuuuuuuuh. Of course they're noted. I wouldnt expect anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Good grief. The entire town has NOT been asked to submit. Do you really believe that police should NOT make a note when someone refuses to submit? That would be poor police work. It doesnt say they are made a suspect, it doesnt say they have an FBI file started. It simply says those that refuse are noted. Well DUuuuuuuuh. Of course they're noted. I wouldnt expect anything else. The police should find a suspect and investigate him. Not cast a wide net and hope they get lucky. Also get off this "it doesn't say" idiocy. No **** it doesn't say, do you think they would be dumb enough to write "if you don't we are going to search into your past as far as we can!" Clearly threats have to be implied or they would never be allowed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 DNA is one of the most accuate forms of evidencial tools that prosecuters have available in catching criminals. This means not only does more of the right people get convicted but also more of the innocent are protected from doing time for crimes they did not commit. On the surface I am sure it looks bad but really DNA evidence would take many biases out of the investigative process. I am with TWA's thinking that a DNA database would be an asset to this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Well f*ck it then, test everyone at birth and keep it all on file. Don't forget to note the gun that every american owns as well. You know....so the victims parents feel happy no stone has been left unturned. While you are at it, give us all little GPS chips so we can be found more easily. If you're innocent who cares! You wouldn't a criminal getting away would you? Again, you take the choice option out with your hypothetical situations that you created. The people could choose to not have the test done, only potential suspects would be asked to begin with, not the whole town. Notice that you left the "choice" option out in your heated post Des. Lets keep the focus on actual rights abused rather than thin skinned percieved abuses, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What if they have evidnce that proves the suspect came from that town? How specific do they have to get before they can ask a person for a DNA sample? What if it's a big family. Say 12 brothers. And the cops know one of them did it? I just dont see what rights are being violated. Nobody is forced to submit. We dont have a right to NOT be a suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Again, you take the choice option out with your hypothetical situations that you created. The people could choose to not have the test done, only potential suspects would be asked to begin with, not the whole town. Notice that you left the "choice" option out in your heated post Des. Lets keep the focus on actual rights abused rather than thin skinned percieved abuses, OK? I was just taking your logical path down a little further. But fine have it your way. Submit your DNA or go on our possible criminals list. You'll have all of your taxes and personal records looked into but unless you broke the law you have nothing to worry about. It's your choice. Then we could all be happy the victims parents are content. Hooray for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Des, you continue to make a false statement. Nobody is put on a "possible criminals list". It is simply "noted" when someone refuses the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 What if they have evidnce that proves the suspect came from that town? How specific do they have to get before they can ask a person for a DNA sample? What if it's a big family. Say 12 brothers. And the cops know one of them did it? I just dont see what rights are being violated. Nobody is forced to submit. We dont have a right to NOT be a suspect. If you know the family I'd say you've narrowed it down pretty well. But to say he came from this town.....that's shady. Not to mention the police in this case aren't even certain of that. They assume it becasue the victim had sex and thus they think it an affair. Affairs typically happen with people you have fairly easy access to. But it could have been an internet buddy.......they don't actually know anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Des, you continue to make a false statement. Nobody is put on a "possible criminals list". It is simply "noted" when someone refuses the test. How do you know what they are going to do about those that don't submit? Did they say? No. You assume they'll just be noted for the sake of it. They could just as easily have it planed to do a full check on everyone that refuses. The one thing we do know is if they were planning on taking it far, they wouldn't tell the media. So I'd rather avoid the hornets nest all together then trust the goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Big fat hairy deal! I'm noted all over Nevada for one reason or another! Yeah, you should definitely be the spokesperson for mandatory DNA testing :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by ross3909 DNA is one of the most accuate forms of evidencial tools that prosecuters have available in catching criminals. This means not only does more of the right people get convicted but also more of the innocent are protected from doing time for crimes they did not commit. On the surface I am sure it looks bad but really DNA evidence would take many biases out of the investigative process. I am with TWA's thinking that a DNA database would be an asset to this country. width = 135 height = 135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 We dont have a right to NOT be a suspect. True, but to execute a search of your home the police needs some evedice first. Then they have to prove to a judge that the evidence provided is factual. then a warrent is issued. Being a resedent in a town two years after the crime is not evedince, it circumstance. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.