If you weren’t sure what would happen to it or how it might eventually be used, would that make you more likely or less likely to voluntarily provide a DNA sample for a criminal investigation?
That’s the point behind a great Globe editorial today. The way investigators have handled DNA samples collected as part of the investigation of Christa Worthington’s murder on the Cape has not been reassuring.
The ACLU of Massachusetts has sued to stop the creation of a “shadow” databank of DNA profiles, and last month, one of our clients got his DNA sample back. That’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not just the samples that matter. The DNA profiles created from the samples need to be addressed as well.
Please share widely!
Don’t you want criminals to be caught?
is best for ruling out suspects, not fingering the guilty. DNA as it is used today cannot identify an individual. It merely tells you the odds that a certain person and anyone else in the population sharing a common set of markers left their DNA at the crime scene.
<
p>The question you really should be asking is
“How can DNA evidence be legitimately used by law enforcement?”
DNA can be used in many ways. With a database of people’s DNA and a good sample, you certainly could search the FBI’s CODIS database and find people. They do it daily. It can be used for either matching or not matching.
<
p>Here’s a great site for a primer on how DNA is used by law enforcement to identify RAPE SUSPECTS.
<
p>I’m sure Laurel the Lib can find a great site where DNA can be used as exculpatory evidence.
<
p>And remember, DNA evidence on the scene (or the victim) doesn’t prove anything. If someone is raped and the DNA does not match, it doesn’t prove the suspect DIDN’T rape her so a non-match simply removed the DNA evidence and does not EXCLUDE the suspect from being guilty. However, a positive match certainly proves the person was present but not much else. That’s my opinion only since I am neither a cop, a DNA expert or a lawyer.
<
p>
“Laurel the Lib”
Why are people so uptight? If you ever have the notion to call me JohnD the Righty… by all means GO FOR IT. I don’t care and would probably laugh. KB is always calling me names and who cares. The only difference is she or others call me names and then I laugh AND reply to their comments. You (and others) send a little blurb about your outrage and then IGNORE the issue. Is there a Latin term for that maneuver? What gives? For future reference, should I assume you are too stuffy for humor? Should I reply in a formal manner? And what gives with the “Latin” on this site? I’m continually having to look up shit. Luckily I now realize you guys throw Latin terms around other than my first inclination that you had bad keyboards or plain couldn’t spell.
Here’s an issue where we are likely to agree: the government should not be cataloging and databasing everyone’s DNA. When DNA samples are collected, the DNA should be properly handled and then, when no longer needed, destroyed.
<
p>And yet, despite the fact that we are probably on the same side on this one, you still feel the need to post some sarcastic, bitter nonsense intended to mock and denigrate the left that only further widens the rift between left and right and makes it that much more difficult to engage in civil discourse.
<
p>Unless you were serious, in which case we can actually have that discussion. But somehow I don’t think that’s the case.
I hope not since I don’t agree that the government should NOT becataloging everyone’s DNA?
<
p>Also, are you saying my remark..
<
p>
<
p>was as you put it…
<
p>
<
p>If this is what you are refering to, would you mnd telling me me “identifying” someone as a liberal and then implying that they wpould e looking for using DNA as a defense (check out their original comments) is sarcastic, bitter nonsense intended to mock and denigrate the left
<
p>BULLSHIT!!! Anytime this site wants to throw down the gauntlet and become a civil, thought provoking, non-aggressive, non-attacking, fact-based, reaching across the aisle site, I’ll be second in line to go by those rules. When does the civil “constructive” discussion begin?
<
p>
… to see a ‘constructive discussion coming from your direction.
…except when I’m not.”
<
p>How one can rage against government spending and its growth and then consistently be for programs that would increase the size and budget of government is baffling.
I posted something last week concerning Illegal Immigration. Now obviously the point of “discussion” would mostly revolve around issues which people feel differently or have opposing views. I happen to have a view on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION which is traditional and varies greatly from many on this site. I stress the ILLEGAL part since opponants try to quickly paint anyone against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as being against Immigration which I am not. As we hear so often… we are all immigrants or from imigrants.
<
p>Now just because we disagree on this does that mean it’s not “constructive”. It’s a big issue that has to be addressed. Many Americans believe it is a huge issue and in fact are not happy about McCain’s view on it.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showC…
<
p>Ditto
I’m not playing that game. You simply said
<
p>
<
p>And I gave what I thought was a good example of a post worth discussing. You replied with a pointer to another vitriolic spew from lightiris (whom I really think needs some help).
<
p>You and others here are blind, blind to the venom that comes out of YOUR mouths everyday. Blind to one sided bias that skews your interpretation of every news item, every issue and removes your sense of humor as well.
<
p>We can talk about Illegal Immigration but just for the record watch the viscous attacks I will receive and the rancor directed at “ANYONE” against the idea of NOT enforcing the law.
<
p>I don’t know how typical it is but I feel many people on this site “give up” easily.