3 ms·

Problem is if they make it illegal now you would pretty much have to release at least 2 horrible prolific serial killers

psychlops 3y ago
Trample on the rights of hundreds of millions or release a few serial killers? I'd take the greater good option.
ilovetux 3y ago
It seems to be coming out that DNA evidence is not as reliable/accurate as we have been led to believe, so yes if the evidence was illegally obtained and of questionable veracity then we should release anyone who was convicted as a result. If blame for the whole situation is required, blame the overzealous prosecutors who raced ahead with flimsy, pseudo-scientific evidence.
- tzs 3y ago
  I don't think that they used the DNA from the databases to convict the people in these cases. I think it was more like this: • They've got a serious crime, like a serial killer, but no real suspects. They do have some DNA that is almost certainly from the criminal but it does not match any DNA they have on file. • Years later they compare that DNA to DNA in some large DNA database that is not focused on criminals. • There are no matches that indicate that the criminal's DNA is in that database, but there are several matches that indicate people who are relatives of the criminal. • They can then look at assorted public records to find people who are related in the right way to some of those relatives. • Among those people, some previous person who either never was a suspect originally or a very weak suspect comes up. They then take a thorough look at any records can find about that person's activities at the times of the crime and find that they were actually connected to most of the victims and in the right places at the right times to be the criminal. • That gives them enough evidence to compel a DNA sample from that person, or they start watching the person and get a DNA sample from something like a discarded napkin or cup that the person unwisely discarded in a public trashcan. That sample matches the samples from the crime scene. • It is that latter sample, and the records of the person's activities and relationships with the victims, that form the bases of the conviction.
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    The point is they absolutely shouldn't have the ability to do blanket searches of DNA banks. That was my point. If they have a warrant for a killer's DNA and that person has sold DNA to 23 and Me then fine, go check his particular file. That would be kind of pointless since they could just force that person to give up their DNA with a specific warrant, but whatever. They should not be able to do pattern matching on the whole DNA database to fund an unknown killer. That would be violating my 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights because they don't have a warrant to check my DNA
EasyMark 3y ago
I hate that, but that's for the greater good. We could prevent virtually all crime if we were all required to be under video, GPS, and audio surveillance at all times and only be permitted to leave your home to go to work or shop for basic goods, otherwise face a lifetime in prison. However, that goes against common sense and agreed upon basic human rights. You should be free of government/police surveillance unless there is a warrant with very specific and limited conditions and parameters, I feel that is the spirit of the 4th amendment and bill of rights in general.

psychlops 3y ago

Trample on the rights of hundreds of millions or release a few serial killers? I'd take the greater good option.

ilovetux 3y ago

It seems to be coming out that DNA evidence is not as reliable/accurate as we have been led to believe, so yes if the evidence was illegally obtained and of questionable veracity then we should release anyone who was convicted as a result. If blame for the whole situation is required, blame the overzealous prosecutors who raced ahead with flimsy, pseudo-scientific evidence.

tzs 3y ago
I don't think that they used the DNA from the databases to convict the people in these cases. I think it was more like this: • They've got a serious crime, like a serial killer, but no real suspects. They do have some DNA that is almost certainly from the criminal but it does not match any DNA they have on file. • Years later they compare that DNA to DNA in some large DNA database that is not focused on criminals. • There are no matches that indicate that the criminal's DNA is in that database, but there are several matches that indicate people who are relatives of the criminal. • They can then look at assorted public records to find people who are related in the right way to some of those relatives. • Among those people, some previous person who either never was a suspect originally or a very weak suspect comes up. They then take a thorough look at any records can find about that person's activities at the times of the crime and find that they were actually connected to most of the victims and in the right places at the right times to be the criminal. • That gives them enough evidence to compel a DNA sample from that person, or they start watching the person and get a DNA sample from something like a discarded napkin or cup that the person unwisely discarded in a public trashcan. That sample matches the samples from the crime scene. • It is that latter sample, and the records of the person's activities and relationships with the victims, that form the bases of the conviction.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  The point is they absolutely shouldn't have the ability to do blanket searches of DNA banks. That was my point. If they have a warrant for a killer's DNA and that person has sold DNA to 23 and Me then fine, go check his particular file. That would be kind of pointless since they could just force that person to give up their DNA with a specific warrant, but whatever. They should not be able to do pattern matching on the whole DNA database to fund an unknown killer. That would be violating my 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights because they don't have a warrant to check my DNA

EasyMark 3y ago

I hate that, but that's for the greater good. We could prevent virtually all crime if we were all required to be under video, GPS, and audio surveillance at all times and only be permitted to leave your home to go to work or shop for basic goods, otherwise face a lifetime in prison. However, that goes against common sense and agreed upon basic human rights. You should be free of government/police surveillance unless there is a warrant with very specific and limited conditions and parameters, I feel that is the spirit of the 4th amendment and bill of rights in general.