If they did this there would less unsolved murders

[David Regal]

I suppose there may be certain obstacles in making this a law, but it would be good if everyone was required to give a DNA sample to be kept in police databases. A lot of murders are unsolved because of no match found in the police database, which only includes convicted felons.

[TheConfessor]

But would there be fewer murders overall? If someone kills me, I probably won't care much about whether it's solved or not. I'll still be dead either way. And if my killer uses a gun, how would his DNA help solve the crime? Come to think of it, if my killer uses poison, or a lead pipe, a candlestick, a knife, a rope, or a wrench, I don't know how his or her DNA records would help close the case.

[pikeprof]

can I get out of this by just promising not to murder anyone? If I don't murder anyone, there's no need to have my DNA.

[Muskrat]

It would also help solve crimes to have everyone's fingerprints on file. Also, we could give have everyone give the police keys to their house so the cops can look around any time they feel like it.

The courts have found that taking a DNA sample and analyzing it for inclusion in the FBI database constitutes a search, which normally means police would need to get a warrant to do it. Persons convicted of crimes have their DNA sampled without a warrant because they lose some of their rights when convicted. Of course, the issue is being pressed ever further -- most arrestees are now DNA sampled, although there continues to be some litigation over the legality of that practice. The balance between freedom from government intrusion and effective policing is a very hard issue, especially in a modern society where sacrificing personal data for convenience (looking at You, Google) is a bargain we willingly make every day. Is it worse for some non-gene-coding DNA strings to sit in a database for years or for Google to know the time and place you searched for "Kate Upton + chipmunk costume + olive oil"?

DNA is an incredibly powerful crime fighting tool. And it's useful in more situations than murder. Under the right conditions, anything you touch can have your DNA on it -- a weapon, a doorknob, a ski mask. DNA can solve assault cases, bank robberies, burglaries--really any crime where a person was physically present. But there are troubling issues associated with it. Aside from the Fourth Amendment/search warrant issues, what does it cost to process DNA samples? State crime labs are being overwhelmed with thousands of swabs taken at crime scenes by investigators who are hoping for a lucky contact-based DNA hit. Moreover, what about other uses for DNA? If everyone were profiled, would they have the right to have, e.g., an unknown father identified? Should people be routinely notified if the genetic parents are not the people on their birth certificates? Lots of interesting issues.

[braggtastic]

Wouldn't there be fewer unsolved murders, not less?

Has anyone ever been murdered for pointing out an error in grammar?

[skullturfq]

I want there to be more unsolved murders, so that we don't have to have a debate about "fewer" vs "less".

[Bill]

Wait, I'm confused. How can a murder be less unsolved? It's either solved or it's unsolved, right?

[TheConfessor]

Wait, I'm confused. How can a murder be less unsolved? It's either solved or it's unsolved, right?

Everything would be solved if only we had a DNA sample from Lee Harvey Oswald. More or less.

[Bill]

I want there to be more unsolved murders, so that we don't have to have a debate about "fewer" vs "less".

In Shakespeare's time, there was a word "moe" which could be used as the opposite to "fewer" the way that "more" is the opposite of "less."

So there could be a lost Shakespeare play called Moe Ducats, Moe Problems. But "moe money" would be incorrect, as I understand the word's usage.

[marpocky]

I want there to be more unsolved murders, so that we don't have to have a debate about "fewer" vs "less".

In Shakespeare's time, there was a word "moe" which could be used as the opposite to "fewer" the way that "more" is the opposite of "less."

So there could be a lost Shakespeare play called Moe Ducats, Moe Problems. But "moe money" would be incorrect, as I understand the word's usage.

That's way moe pieces of information than I expected to learn from this thread.

[TheConfessor]

Audiences never thought that Two Stooges were enough, so they added Moe.

[Muskrat]

I realize nobody cares, but I feel compelled to point out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California today issued an opinion holding that extracting and analyzing the DNA of people arrested for any felony is constitutional. In essence, they say that DNA is so useful that the minor intrusion of having your mouth swabbed with a Q-tip is worth it. (And some of the plaintiffs in the case were arrested for the "felony" of getting in the way of cops at political protests -- no intimidation there!)

The text is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -15152.pdf

They did say that collecting DNA from random people on the street without a warrant would be unconstitutional, but I'm willing to bet that within 10-15 years your DNA index will be as ubiquitous a form of ID, and as routinely used by government, as your social security number is now. DNA profiles are as unique as fingerprints, essentially impossible to modify, and will be cheaper and faster to derive as time goes on. Moreover, you leave DNA behind almost everywhere you go. Given a leap or two in technology, it won't be hard for retailers to grab your DNA from display counters, silverware you handle, etc.

OK, enough ranting.