Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
This decision just came in. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is permissible for the police to take a person’s DNA after a mere arrest---after an arrest, NOT a conviction.
Disappointing, but not surprising. The Court’s reasoning is DNA is the 21st Century’s fingerprinting. I hate to break it to the fine justices on the court, but taking DNA is more intrusive.
Interesting that Scalia, usually a staunch conservative, broke ranks and voted in dissent. Of course, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, (I liken them to three of the four horses of the Apocalypse) voted in favor. Three Conservative justices and also members of the Replican party, appointed by Republican presidents. I hope everyone reads and learns something from this and understands why I say that the Republican party is harder on sex offenders than the other party.
No, I don’t wish to get into a debate about this, as the facts show that most of the sex offender laws have been INTRODUCED by Republicans---so there is really not much of an argument unless you want to argue against facts. Yes, both parties dislike us and neither party is a friend of the middle class, and yes, the Democrats vote in favor of the laws against sex offenders, but only after the Republican have introduced and lobbied for the bill.
If you look at all the Federal court decisions and the Supreme Court decisions you will find that judges appointed by Republican politicians usually always vote in favor of law and order legislation at the expense of people like us. I researched it and over 80% of the laws that are affecting our familes were introduced by members of the Republican party.
I am sure this will bring out some people who will defend the Republicans or Conservatives, but I don’t understand how they can argue with the facts.
But anyhow, decisions like this just move us closer to a Police State.
And remember who appointed the justices that voted in favor of this legislation.
rewdiazepam
Disappointing, but not surprising. The Court’s reasoning is DNA is the 21st Century’s fingerprinting. I hate to break it to the fine justices on the court, but taking DNA is more intrusive.
Interesting that Scalia, usually a staunch conservative, broke ranks and voted in dissent. Of course, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, (I liken them to three of the four horses of the Apocalypse) voted in favor. Three Conservative justices and also members of the Replican party, appointed by Republican presidents. I hope everyone reads and learns something from this and understands why I say that the Republican party is harder on sex offenders than the other party.
No, I don’t wish to get into a debate about this, as the facts show that most of the sex offender laws have been INTRODUCED by Republicans---so there is really not much of an argument unless you want to argue against facts. Yes, both parties dislike us and neither party is a friend of the middle class, and yes, the Democrats vote in favor of the laws against sex offenders, but only after the Republican have introduced and lobbied for the bill.
If you look at all the Federal court decisions and the Supreme Court decisions you will find that judges appointed by Republican politicians usually always vote in favor of law and order legislation at the expense of people like us. I researched it and over 80% of the laws that are affecting our familes were introduced by members of the Republican party.
I am sure this will bring out some people who will defend the Republicans or Conservatives, but I don’t understand how they can argue with the facts.
But anyhow, decisions like this just move us closer to a Police State.
And remember who appointed the justices that voted in favor of this legislation.
rewdiazepam
The real culprit in all these ridiculous sex offender laws is the Conservatives. They are literally killing us with some of these sex offender laws.
I had one politician I spoke to brag to me, "We are the Republican party. We believe in law and order and a "tough on crime" attitude. This is one reason we have so many sex offender laws."
rewdiazepam
Moderate.
BTW, Megan's Law, HR 2137 had 27 sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill. These were the politicians that promoted the bill which has caused us and our family so much suffering.
Of the 27 sponsors and co-sponsors of Megan's Law, 22 were Republican Conservatives. That says it all.
rewdiazepam
One reason this country is moving toward a Police state is because of the day in day out 24/7 media coverage on our TV and the media’s propensity to sensationalize and give so much airtime to crimes and stories of a criminal nature.
When I was growing up, we had three TV stations and only one had decent reception. The station would come on at 6:00 each morning and sign off at midnight each day. There were terrible crimes committed all over this country, but the average viewer never even heard about it; the TV stations only had a limited number of hours to be on the air, and they reported mostly local or regional crimes. So the average viewer back then was not continually subjected and bombarded with crime, criminal trials, and those things.
This all changed when CNN, MSNBC, and FOX (FAUX) news came upon the scene. Now people are exposed to all the evils of our country, not just the local crimes, but the crimes on a national scene. So people naturally begin to believe that crime is much more rampant than it actually is. They see month long trials like the Jody Arias trial, or the Michael Jackson trial or the Scott Peterson trial, and these trials start to work on their psyche. Then you have one of the most repulsive human beings that God ever created in Nancy Grace to give you a play by play of that day’s court activity. It is little wonder that the average viewer, some of whom may not be very intelligent anyway, thinks that the bogeyman is ready to jump out at them on every street corner.
Why do networks spend so much money and time on crime stories? Because bad news sells. Crime stories = more viewers = better ratings = more advertisers = more money. Simple as that.
Bad news is always more interesting to a viewer than feel good stories. It is like the situation where it is difficult for people not to stop to see what happened at a car wreck.
Now that this has been hammered into people’s minds on a daily basis, they start clamoring for the government to do something to protect them from all this crime problem. So the citizens talk to the lawmakers, who see the gravy train that all this fear has brought. So they pass more laws to satisfy the people.
Really it is just common sense what is happening and why.
rewdiazepam
DNA is often used for proving both guilt and innocence in many crimes. A person who is arrested is under suspicion of committing a crime. That is why they were arrested...or should be anyway.
You need some evidence to charge someone and even more to convict someone.
It seems to me that it would be natural to collect all the evidence you can if there is already enough suspicion to arrest someone...and definitely if there is enough to charge them.
Collecting after a conviction makes no sense unless it is to be used to clear someone's name (which has happened) or to connect them to a separate crime (which has also happened).
I am all for the least amount of intrusion as possible, but I just don't see how the collecting of DNA in this instance is wrong.
Now, wholesale collecting of everyone's...yes. But they probably already have close to that from all the babies born in this country for a long time back...not to mention any other bloodwork that is done and info saved in the collective medical system. Only new people coming into the country they might not have.
Deena
You make some valid points. Collecting DNA evidence from someone arrested would be fine if it stopped there—but it won’t. If we have learned anything from government, we have learned throughout history that when you give the government an inch they will take a mile. And once that power is taken from the people, it will never be given back.
If the taking of the DNA was a noble cause and used for the good, then that would be fine. This is just one example of many that just puts this country on a slippery slope to a Police State.
Allowing them to collect DNA from those only arrested will only lead to more intrusions on the citizens. At first they will use this procedure on only those arrested and detained for major crimes such as rape, bank robbery, etc.
But give them enough time and this procedure will be used for crimes of a less serious nature. After some period of time, it will be used on anyone suspected of any crime regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Give an inch, take a mile.
Surely, surely to God, you do not trust the government to follow the law and not want more power in these situations. Anyone is terribly naïve and has had no experience with the criminal justice or legal system if they put any trust in government “to do the right thing.”
The government has an insatiable appetite for power. Years ago, the innocent was protected in a police interview because of the Miranda warning. Recently, the Supreme Court has made rulings that greatly reduced the right we have as citizens in any Miranda situation. I don’t recall that particular case, but I could find it easy enough. And some politicians---and some judges agree---that there should be no Miranda warnings to begin with. They want to dilute it down so much that it means nothing.
You have the same situation with our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Years ago, it was an absolute right with no strings attached. Then the government got involved. It was diluted to the “plain view” theory where a search warrant was not needed if the police could see something they were looking for in the house without entering the house. Last year, the government proposed that we do away with the main provisions of the Sixth Amendment altogether. Our constitutional rights are in jeopardy every day.
And, closer to home, when the sex offender registries were first adopted in 1994, the only burden on the offender was to report once a year to the local police jurisdiction to confirm the address. Many states just had the registrant to mail in a card with no in person visit required.
Then, as they always do, the government and the legislators went into full gear. Next they morphed the law to require in person visits and from once a year to twice a year to every 90 days for some registrants.
They then went the extra mile and added registry requirements; then the original “simple” registry morphed even further with designations on drivers licenses, employment information on the internet, etc, etc, etc. And the registry requirements we have today are nothing like the ones when the registry was implemented in 1994. The government was given an inch and they took a mile.
So you see, the government is never content with the powers they have. And some people are willing to think it is perfectly logical to allow the government these extra powers----and that is why they get away with it.
Lastly, DNA is used to both convict people and vindicate people of crimes. But you can bet the farm that the proponents of this law are not wanting to implement this law to clear anyone in regards to a crime. Hell, it’s like pulling hen’s teeth to get a prosecutor to release any evidence which might be tested for DNA to prove one’s innocence; many times it requires a court order or a law to be passed to force them to release the evidence so a man can be exonerated. So this DNA will not be used to help defendants.
I just do not trust the government. Over the years I have seen too much corruption and underhanded games with our Constitutional right to have any faith in the government to ever do the right thing.
Deenamom, I certainly respect your view, and I certainly am happy that you commented on this, but I just do not trust the government as much as you do. I realize your family is just now beginning this nightmare. By the time this is over---win lose or draw---you will most likely have a different view of our government and how it handles criminal or potentially criminal cases.
You just cannot count on the government to be “good guys” and “do the right thing.”
rewdiazepam
I understand the way the government works. But the alternative of nothing is not all that desirable, either. I guess one alternative would be for a warrant to have to be gotten to get DNA. In other words, if the person is unwilling to give it voluntarily, a judge could be approached with an argument showing why it is truly necessary. If the judge is convinced, then he gives the warrant and the DNA is collected.
I do agree that I would rather err on the side of caution and freedom. It is a tricky thing, I think.
I really do respect your opinion and your point of view, and your response is greatly appreciated whether we agree or not.
You spoke about the alternative for collecting DNA using the example of blood being under a accused attacker’s fingernails. That, Deenamom, is just a collection of evidence, which is good police work. In your hypothetical, the blood under the fingernails is evidence which is SPECIFIC for an accused crime, assault. The blood is not being collected for DNA per se, but for evidence for an investigation and possible trial.
This is not the case with this ruling. In your hypothetical case, evidence is being preserved from a crime scene. In today’s ruling, the DNA swab is NOT being used as evidence of a crime; it is being used only for possible identification purposes.
For example, let’s say I was arrested—only arrested, not convicted--- for shooting a man on a parking lot at Wal Mart. They would take me down to the station and take my DNA. The DNA had nothing to do with the specifics of the crime committed as it did with the fingernail example you gave. In my case of the shooting at Wal Mart, the taking of the DNA was just a formality and would never be used against me as evidence as it would in the fingernail case.
In your fingernail case, the blood they collected under the fingernails WOULD be used against the defendant in a court of law. In my example, the DNA collected had absolutely nothing to do with the crime of murder, and they could not use the DNA against me if I went to trial.
Why should someone arrested—but not convicted---have fewer rights than a regular citizen? Should just being accused of a crime be enough for the government to take DNA samples? So if the DNA is just being used for identification purposes, which it is many times, why should you Deenamom be exempt from having your DNA taken as a matter of procedure? Should someone who has only been accused have fewer rights than you Deenamom have as a mother? And if so, why?
You spoke that maybe the answer would be obtaining a warrant to get the DNA. In your blood under the fingernail example, no warrant is needed to collect the evidence. The evidence is right there, outside the body in the form of blood under the fingernail. No warrant is needed.
You know, Deenamom, I do not have all the answers. But I do know that the government will misuse the power we as citizens give them. You are talking to a man who spent eight years in prison because of police misconduct, so maybe my perspective is different than yours.
And I do believe that a man just accused of a crime—but not convicted—should have no more burdens put upon him than any ordinary citizen, until he is convicted.
I appreciate your thoughts, Deenamom. I really do and I mean that.
rewdiazepam
I do see the difference between my example and what you are saying this ruling does. I have to agree with you that collecting simply for the sake of collecting is wrong. I also see why they want to do it and recognize that it is not for good reasons.
I have seen police injustice...not to the degree you have, but I have seen it...close to home. So, I am not as naive as I may come across. ;) I just try to see all sides and figure out as best I can what is best. Sometimes, there is no "best"...only "tolerable".
Thanks for the clarification and the dialog. I really appreciate it. :)
I only wish this were consistently true. Unfortunately, there are many who are accused, charged, convicted, sentenced, and locked up because of false testimony and manipulated evidence. Once a person is even suspected of being an SO, he or she becomes a pariah in the eyes of the community. The accused is swept under the rug as an unpleasant reminder that such horrible things could happen and no one even wants to look close enough to determine whether or not the incident really happened.