…and I thought…could that be GOPGeorgia he’s responding to? And, sure ‘nough, it was.

DNA solves just one in 150 crimes
DNA helps solve fewer than one in every 150 crimes, a senior police officer has admitted.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 5:27PM GMT 05 Jan 2010

Of the 4.9 million crimes recorded by the police each year, just 33,000 – or 0.67 per cent – are solved directly as a result of a DNA match, according to Chris Sims, who speaks for chief constables on the issue.

The figures will further fuel concerns over the expansion of the national DNA database, the largest of its kind in the world, and its true effectiveness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6937558/DNA-solves-just-one-in-150-crimes.html

Additionally, with sexual offenses, the perpetrator is known to the victim well over 80% of the time (child offenses – over 90%). In most cases, there is no need at all for DNA. The person who needs to be accused is known.

Lastly, if you take a look at the FACTS in Georgia. The huge majority of people who have been linked to crimes via DNA have not been people convicted of sexual crimes. That includes for – pay attention here – sexual crimes. You can verify that for yourself. Don’t believe government propaganda.

If we are going to have such laws, then let’s have them for everyone. And frankly, since governments have been stealing my rights for over a decade with no facts or due process, I don’t really care what happens to anyone else’s. I’ll vote to take DNA from everyone at birth.

What’s that you say? You don’t? Well, up to a point – but it’s not strictly true to say that once you’re on the database you absolutely can’t get off again. It’s just very, very hard and it’s going to take you a long, long time.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/26/dna_database_removal/

The men’s information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7764069.stm

This is only part of the issue. What we’re really talking about is “bodily fluids” and “real DNA” which is taken involuntarily from “real humans”. There’s plenty more angles here too Harry. And without getting into Alex Jones territory the fact is that human DNA has significant “market value” these days. So we run the risk of not only de-humanizing people with draconian measures but also turning “law enforcement” into “collection agencies” for big pharma and agribusiness. So I guess one question I have is who REALLY wrote this legislation.

I’ll stray down this path with you. I will be the first to admit that no cash of WMD’s were found. However, give me a county the size of California, tell me you are coming and I’m betting I could play hide or go seek or smuggle WMD’s into Syria with the best of them. Remember that they found cannon shell casings with anthrax traces in them.

Warrentless wiretaps were used to keep track of suspected terrorists overseas when they called into the US. None of these were used in any convictions of an American citizen. Rules of engagement, not justice system.

Even if I said there never any weapons of mass destruction, Sadam was backing terrorists; maybe not the 9/11 terrorists, but terrorists all the same. He was giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. If that were happening in Savannah instead of Tel Aviv, you might have been more on board with going after a sponsor of terrorists.

Before boots were on the ground, W still have Sadam the chance to step down and let the weapons inspectors in. Sadam was behaving much like Iran is now.

With WMD’s I’d rather attack too soon than attack too late; but then again, I’m not running for President.

There is a difference in the way a country treats it’s citizens and the way it deals with others countries. It’s an apples and oranges thing. Then again, I don’t think we should take our POW’s and try them in an American court room either. POW’s should not have the same rights as American citizens accused of a crime.

In hearings to extend this act, Senator Feingold pressed the point home that 75% or so of the uses of the “Patriot” Act powers were in DRUG cases.

When government takes your rights, they are GONE and you cannot believe one damned word of assurances that the new government powers will be narrowly construed in favor of the US citizen.

A democratically elected Government of a “Christian” country herded those doomed Jews onto freight cars. Wouldn’t they have rioted and risked death right then and there, if there had not been “assurances’ from THEIR government and false hope engendered thereby?

Government assurance = LIE, 9 times out of 10.

In hearings to extend this act, Senator Feingold pressed the point home that 75% or so of the uses of the “Patriot” Act powers were in DRUG cases.

When government takes your rights, they are GONE and you cannot believe one damned word of assurances that the new government powers will be narrowly construed in favor of the US citizen.

A democratically elected Government of a “Christian” country herded those doomed Jews onto freight cars. Wouldn’t they have rioted and risked death right then and there, if there had not been “assurances’ from THEIR government and false hope engendered thereby?

Government assurance = LIE, 9 times out of 10.

Maybe the telecom wiretapping without a warrant is a better example if you want to keep it closer to home. But it’s the same false choice between security and liberty.

If you were a crime victim you’d want every tool available.

Apparently Rep. Teilhet is that tool!

I’ll give Rep. Teilhet credit for good intentions, but I simply do not trust government. Upon conviction (or pleading to a lesser crime) then by all means collect the DNA data or – an even better idea – the person’s entire head if we’re talking about child molestation, but not for arrest where there is no conviction or plea.

Those who would give up essential liberty….to purchase a little temporary safety….deserve neither liberty nor safety….Benjamin Franklin….1759

Still holds true 251 years later…..

http://www.katieslaw.org/

http://www.dnasaves.org/dna_law.php These folks are a non-profit set-up to advocate for DNA registry. Their family suffered a murder of a child, thus compelling them to act to increase the efficiency of law enforcement through DNA registries.

To me the only issue about a DNA registry is when the sample is collected; either upon arrest or conviction. It seems creating a registry upon conviction has plenty of benefits, collection upon arrest seems problematic.

Off target, just a bit. Justice system, not rules of engagement.