yes you can plant DNA, the beer or pop you drink the cigarette you
smoke or the tissue you use all have DNA on them. and thay can be left
at a crime seen

From an article about a federal database, which could apply to
non-government databases as well:

>> Once someone's DNA code is in the federal database, critics say, that person is effectively treated as a suspect every time a match with a crime-scene specimen is sought -- even though there is no reason to believe that the person committed the crime.

I have to say that having this implemented will help solve alot more
crimes more quickly saving alot of lives including those of your
children and your childrens children. I see nothing wrong with it, but
of course the criminals, and paranoid fanatics will so I say to those
people tuff ****, I want my children to grow up in a safer environment.

Horseracer, currently, a cigarette, beer can, whatever, can be at a
crime scene and have a completely innocent person's DNA on it...they do
rely on other evidence and testimony, you know; they're not just going
to lock someone up based on that evidence alone.

There is more to this issue that "whether or not we should implement it"
- there is also the question of: "If we implement it, *how* should it be
implemented? How should it be used?"

Its like everything else in law enforcement - we need to empower law
enforcement officers (and prosecuting attorneys) to be able to enforce
the law, but we also need to restrain those officers from abusing the
power we've invested in them.

New technology raises new issues, things we may not have thought of.

I have to say that I agree with it as well. Why worry about it if you
have no intention of doing a crime? Sure there are many more aspects to
it as well. But as has already been stated, they do rely on more than
just DNA to convict a suspect. I think if it helps to convict more
criminals charged with serious crimes go for it. If it narrows down the
field of suspects, absolutely. In any crime there is DNA everywhere.

Just an interesting story to toss out at you. My mother, who had stage
four cancer and underwent Chemotherapy and Radiation was trying to get
the father to my sister to pay child support She went through DNA
testing as did the father. It came back 99 percent that he was the
father, but came back inconclusive that my mom was the mother. Which is
absolutely crazy and he tried to get custody of my sister then stating
that her mother was not really her mother. Point of the story? The chemo
and the radiation changed enough of my mothers DNA to make it an awkward
situation.

My PRO POINT OF VIEW :
Currently the DNA database is supposed to be comprised of known
criminals, specifically those criminals who have committed crimes
heinous enough that DNA sampling was considered useful. Now
statistics, according to some, say that a person who has committed such
a crime is likely to have family members, also of the same background
that are more likely to be involved in a crime where dank is a valuable
piece of evidence. When you consider the way some kids grow up, the
malfunctioned family groups we have today, this makes sense. This has
also been proven time and again in many places in the world, not just
here. Therefore, the DNA on file is useful to indicate a family
member’s involvement in another crime, when that family member is
closely related.

All that being said, I rather look at it like the old saying, the lock
on the door is there to keep honest people honest, but it won’t stop a
thief. Well if the family members of criminals who were caught, tried
and found guilty know that “their” DNA can be traced through the person
in prison, JUST MAYBE that might be enough of a deterrent to keep some
more people honest, if not, they can be found.

If the DNA database was kept ONLY for those offenders found guilty and
if there is enough checks and balances to maintain and dole out this
information, I am in full agreement with it’s continuance and it’s use.

My CON POINT OF VIEW:
We always tend to view thing based on the package they are presented in.
We REALLY need to view the whole picture. To start passing laws
haphazardly could cause major issues down the line. We are only now
beginning to understand some of the knowledge wrapped up in that DNA.

Someone commented on the order of “this is the stuff of science
fiction” and true enough it is. What if in the future we find some
strand of DNA that has the ability to
“ “ name something there, like, cure the common cold, or cure AIDS or
cure all forms of cancer. Say some small pharmaceutical company
discovers this, but also discovers that only 1 in approx 2 billion
people are born with it. BUT they find someone with this DNA strand.
They don’t want this person in the picture; it messes up billions of
dollars in prescription sales for them. So the person is set up –
caught, convicted and we all know THE DRUG COMPANIES CAN DO ANYTHING
including run a country from behind the scenes. So they make the death
penalty happen to this innocent person. Science Fiction? I say
scary!

The whole DNA thing needs to be completely thought out and any law
regarding it’s being and it’s use needs to include all the measures that
will be used to run it, monitor it, and use it.

Oh, forgot to comment, something Garden said. In the army he had to
give fingerprints, probably still on file.

Consider this: In WWII, during a battle that looked hopeless, a
commanding officer would often trade his dog tags with the corpse of a
fellow low ranking service man. Usually someone he knew and would
assume that identity if captured. We give the government our lives,
our families lives and when enlisting you give away certain
constitutional rights. So when deciding if such a database for dna
should be lawful, it might be well to TRY to include restrictions.
Pehaps that no dna gathered from a member of the armed forces or
reserves as a part of the enlistment process or gained through any act
or action dealing solely with the armed forces shat ever be made
publicly accessible. For in serve to our government, we do not have the
ability to make our own choices as free citizens. Can you imagine, a
war scenerio in which DNA becomes a bartering point for prisoner
exchange or worse, a selling point for those who would commit treason
for self gain.

Just one of the things that we need to consider when looking at making
laws dealing with DNA.

Wow, the last two posts really had some pith to them. I am going to HAVE
to take the opposing viewpoint here. The problem isn't just with
catalogging human being like so much live stock, but its this herd
mentality that allows it. The issue revolves around precedents, and what
will be acceptable/constitutional in a court room setting beyond just
the confines of the law.

For example, if we keep all DNA evidence of ANYONE who has been taken
into custody (by the way this also includes anyone who has been involved
in domestic disputes, unpaid parking tickets, rtc.), then that evidence
needs to be kept there. Which means that ANYONE has access to it, not
just the government. Don't believe me? Thanks to the internet anyone can
find out anything about anyone within a matter of seconds, identity
theft is already an issue. What happens when special interest groups
outside of our government start dealing in "high-end" identity theft.

Additionally, I mentioned precedents. Today we find it constitutionally
acceptable to keep your DNA. Tomorrow, we are forcing everyone to submit
their DNA. The day after...do you really want to think about that? We
give our liberty away inches at a time; but it has been a long time,
with many inches flying through our fingers. I'm not conservative or
liberal. Politically, I'm a Libretarian. Don't know what it means, look
it up. All you need to glean from that tid-bit is that I don't want the
government in my daily affairs, heck, the less government the better. We
need a military, and we need our property rights protected. Beuracracy
has proven itself to be inefficient time and time agan, so why do we let
one run every aspect of our lives?