|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jun 3, 2013 16:09:53 GMT -5
www.11alive.com/news/article/295148/40/Supreme-Court-OKs-DNA-swab-for-serious-arrestsA landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court today as they have approved DNA swabs for people arrested but not convicted for serious crimes. I personally feel this was the correct decision and I'm all for it. Some of us may remember John Walsh advocating for this at the end of one of AMW on Lifetime's episodes, stating DNA swabs not only solve crimes, but can free those wrongly convicted as well. President Obama also advocated for this during an interview with John Walsh and AMW in 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by HeadMarshal on Jun 3, 2013 17:11:59 GMT -5
It's obvious that DNA testing is useful in solving certain crimes, but I've often felt that a national database for DNA would be rather pointless. A 2010 report by the Guardian newspaper in the UK shows why DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of violent crimes, contrary to what's depicted in the media. The report mentions that in 2010, only 1 out of 1300 crimes reported to the police were solved by the DNA database in Britain. This begs the question if the majority of DNA profiles need to be on the registry, similar to the recent points I've made as to whether the majority of sex offenders need to be on a registry. DNA evidence is only really that useful in sex crime cases, and only if the victim doesn't take a long time to report the assault and not wash away evidence, or if the victim requests a rape kit to be put into storage and never asks for it to be tested. Also, most sex-crime victims know their victimizer so DNA evidence isn't often needed. I would also like to bring up the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 to see as to how many homicides would likely contain DNA evidence. Out of the 1816 homicides that was proven to have been committed during a felony, only 24 of them could have been proven to have been committed during a sex crime. 734 were committed during a robbery and 390 were committed as a result of narcotic drug laws. It would be rare for DNA evidence to be located during a robbery and even rarer to be located as a result of a narcotics-related crime. Also out of the 5976 homicides committed as a result of something other than a felony, 3509 were committed during an argument or brawl. 673 of the homicides were gang-related. Considering the most of those homicides are committed by guns, it's even less likely to find DNA evidence. With this in mind would establishing a national DNA database be the best resource of Law Enforcement's time? One can post some articles about how cold cases were solved from DNA or an innocent person was exonerated by DNA and base a supporting argument from that. Problem is that Law Enforcement has to try to solve all types of violent crime, and at least as far as homicides go, DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of them. Even establishing a database of shell casings from guns wouldn't be that useful since it isn't uncommon for guns to change ownership. Just wanted to throw this out there. Any counter-arguments or comments would be appreciated.  www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256404/How-just-0-3-cent-solved-crimes-DNA-database.htmlwww.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10 |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jun 3, 2013 17:23:22 GMT -5
It's obvious that DNA testing is useful in solving certain crimes, but I've often felt that a national database for DNA would be rather pointless. A 2010 report by the Guardian newspaper in the UK shows why DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of violent crimes, contrary to what's depicted in the media. The report mentions that in 2010, only 1 out of 1300 crimes reported to the police were solved by the DNA database in Britain. This begs the question if the majority of DNA profiles need to be on the registry, similar to the recent points I've made as to whether the majority of sex offenders need to be on a registry. DNA evidence is only really that useful in sex crime cases, and only if the victim doesn't take a long time to report the assault and not wash away evidence, or if the victim requests a rape kit to be put into storage and never asks for it to be tested. Also, most sex-crime victims know their victimizer so DNA evidence isn't often needed. I would also like to bring up the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 to see as to how many homicides would likely contain DNA evidence. Out of the 1816 homicides that was proven to have been committed during a felony, only 24 of them could have been proven to have been committed during a sex crime. 734 were committed during a robbery and 390 were committed as a result of narcotic drug laws. It would be rare for DNA evidence to be located during a robbery and even rarer to be located as a result of a narcotics-related crime. Also out of the 5976 homicides committed as a result of something other than a felony, 3509 were committed during an argument or brawl. 673 of the homicides were gang-related. Considering the most of those homicides are committed by guns, it's even less likely to find DNA evidence. With this in mind would establishing a national DNA database be the best resource of Law Enforcement's time? One can post some articles about how cold cases were solved from DNA or an innocent person was exonerated by DNA and base a supporting argument from that. Problem is that Law Enforcement has to try to solve all types of violent crime, and at least as far as homicides go, DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of them. Even establishing a database of shell casings from guns wouldn't be that useful since it isn't uncommon for guns to change ownership. Just wanted to throw this out there. Any counter-arguments or comments would be appreciated. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256404/How-just-0-3-cent-solved-crimes-DNA-database.htmlwww.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10Just my feeling that if even one crime is solved by this new DNA swab, it could potentially save lives in the future, even if the odds are usually that it won't. And we have also seen way too many prisoners who were wrongfully convicted and freed by DNA, so this would help in this regard as well. It's important to have as another tool in solving crimes imo for this reasons. Sorry, I'm a bit more of the brief variety when presenting arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by HeadMarshal on Jun 3, 2013 17:42:45 GMT -5
It's obvious that DNA testing is useful in solving certain crimes, but I've often felt that a national database for DNA would be rather pointless. A 2010 report by the Guardian newspaper in the UK shows why DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of violent crimes, contrary to what's depicted in the media. The report mentions that in 2010, only 1 out of 1300 crimes reported to the police were solved by the DNA database in Britain. This begs the question if the majority of DNA profiles need to be on the registry, similar to the recent points I've made as to whether the majority of sex offenders need to be on a registry. DNA evidence is only really that useful in sex crime cases, and only if the victim doesn't take a long time to report the assault and not wash away evidence, or if the victim requests a rape kit to be put into storage and never asks for it to be tested. Also, most sex-crime victims know their victimizer so DNA evidence isn't often needed. I would also like to bring up the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 to see as to how many homicides would likely contain DNA evidence. Out of the 1816 homicides that was proven to have been committed during a felony, only 24 of them could have been proven to have been committed during a sex crime. 734 were committed during a robbery and 390 were committed as a result of narcotic drug laws. It would be rare for DNA evidence to be located during a robbery and even rarer to be located as a result of a narcotics-related crime. Also out of the 5976 homicides committed as a result of something other than a felony, 3509 were committed during an argument or brawl. 673 of the homicides were gang-related. Considering the most of those homicides are committed by guns, it's even less likely to find DNA evidence. With this in mind would establishing a national DNA database be the best resource of Law Enforcement's time? One can post some articles about how cold cases were solved from DNA or an innocent person was exonerated by DNA and base a supporting argument from that. Problem is that Law Enforcement has to try to solve all types of violent crime, and at least as far as homicides go, DNA isn't that useful in solving the majority of them. Even establishing a database of shell casings from guns wouldn't be that useful since it isn't uncommon for guns to change ownership. Just wanted to throw this out there. Any counter-arguments or comments would be appreciated. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256404/How-just-0-3-cent-solved-crimes-DNA-database.htmlwww.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10Just my feeling that if even one crime is solved by this new DNA swab, it could potentially save lives in the future, even if the odds are usually that it won't. And we have also seen way too many prisoners who were wrongfully convicted and freed by DNA, so this would help in this regard as well. It's important to have as another tool in solving crimes imo for this reasons. Sorry, I'm a bit more of the brief variety when presenting arguments. The problem I have with your argument is if it's the best use of the time and resources of Law Enforcement. Considering so many homicides are committed with firearms, could Law Enforcement make steps to tackle the problem with international illegal gun trafficking and enforce background checks at gun shows? Also what could Law Enforcement do about the sheer amount of homicides committed as a result of arguments. If a national DNA database is the best that Law Enforcement can solve and prevent violent crimes, then based on the results from the Guardian study, Law Enforcement must have exhausted all other ideas as to how to stop crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jun 3, 2013 17:49:17 GMT -5
Nothing says they can't also pursue other methods to solve and prevent crimes while having the database (well besides congress or the Supreme Court)
|
|
