Kulamata
Unemployed
Mane Man
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by Kulamata on Jun 11, 2013 4:54:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tantalyr on Jun 11, 2013 12:39:15 GMT
Kulamata, in response to your question about fingerprinting . . . . In fact, the majority opinion in the case cavalierly concluded that taking DNA samples is no greater a privacy intrusion than taking fingerprints from arrestees. Even a moment's reflection dashes that theory. In the first place, it doesn't take a degree in nuclear physics to figure out that someone prying open my mouth and sticking in and rolling around a swab is far, far more intrusive than simply putting my fingers on an inkpad and rolling them on cardstock. Second, the purposes of taking DNA samples on the one hand, and fingerprinting on the other, are entirely different. Fingerprinting arrestees serves two functions: (1) keeping track of them in the jail/prison population, and (2) potentially matching them to fingerprints found at the scene of the crime for which the person was arrested--with probable cause I might add. On the other hand, the purpose of taking DNA samples is to see whether or not they might match up to some old, unsolved case with absolutely no probable cause to believe that the arrestee might have been involved in any prior crimes. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Taking DNA samples simply on the mere chance--the metaphysical speculation--that the arrestee just MIGHT have been involved in some other crime is, in my judgment, as unreasonable as it gets.
|
|