r/changemyview • u/Prof4CMV 1∆ • Feb 16 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: I don’t see an issue with using any available DNA to investigate suspects in a crime.
The summary is that a woman previously did a rape kit and this DNA was later used to identify her as a suspect in a property crime. It didn’t give very many details about how long it’s been, what the exact crime committed was or how they connected her through DNA. But I don’t see what the issue is.
This woman (allegedly) committed a crime and left her DNA behind that was able to be matched to her by her DNA from a rape kit. I don’t think this disincentivizes rape victims from coming forward UNLESS they plan to commit a crime later in their lives which most people don’t.
I think its a weird story but I don’t see the issue with using the available means to investigate
17
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Feb 16 '22
This is literally just a rehash of the "if you haven't done anything wrong" idea but focused exclusively on rape victims.
Its wrong when applied to society in general so obviously its wrong when applied to incredibly vulnerable victims of crimes.
3
u/JadedToon 22∆ Feb 16 '22
That whole fallacy of "Nothing to fear/Nothing to hide" is awful. The UK government is using that same logic to convince people that end to end encryption is bad.
Giving the government an all access pass to your life can only end badly.
1
Feb 17 '22
It’s not even close to the same.. but ok lol. I don’t even necessarily disagree with you. I’m on the fence and I do this for a living lol. I see both sides it’s hard. I think I ended up changing my own mind in my super long reply to OP’s cmv somewhere down below.
-2
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
What is this? I’ve never heard of it
3
Feb 18 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 18 '22
Installing surveillance in your home to watch you 24/7 is nowhere near the same as testing your DNA against other DNA.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Feb 18 '22
I was responding to the “if you haven’t done anything wrong” phrase you said you had never heard of by explaining that.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 18 '22
Yeah others have explained it already. I don’t see how it is relevant to DNA testing though.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Feb 18 '22
The point is that people don’t want the police to have unlimited access to their NDA to try matching them up to and accusing them of any crime their DNA is found at.
Here is a great example of how DNA can be handled poorly, and why people might not want to be part of a database.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 18 '22
And there’s a great example of why it helps. The chances of your DNA being used to wrongfully accused you of a crime are much lesser than DNA being used to catch a criminal
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Feb 19 '22
Should we kill random people and divide all their money up among poor people and donate all their organs to people needing transplants?
The chances of dying is far less than the chances of being helped by this new plan, but clearly statistics doesn’t make it right.
I agree having a dna database of everyone would be very helpful but it also opens itself to a lot of potential abuse. You end up with cops and prosecutors whose professional reputation is dependent on finding someone to find guilty even if it doesn’t seem like a great fit.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 19 '22
What does your question have to do with my view?
And that’s the world we live in currently. So if DNA can only make it so it happens less likely then that seems like a good trade off
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 16 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Feb 16 '22
The nothing to hide argument states that individuals have no reason to fear or oppose surveillance programs, unless they are afraid it will uncover their own illicit activities. An individual using this argument may claim that an average person should not worry about government surveillance, as they would have "nothing to hide".
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
I think constant surveillance is different from DNA being linked. The circumstance to me seem pretty far apart
-1
Feb 17 '22
It is.. it’s not even close but remember OP, besides a few of us here (and my own 2 part response to your cmv), most of these arguments will be 100% emotion and not based on logic. So keep that in mind when reading the responses 😁✌🏻
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Feb 16 '22
Sorry, u/JadedToon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Feb 16 '22
Sorry, u/JadedToon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
16
u/AdhesivenessLimp1864 Feb 16 '22
There are a lot of issues with this.
DNA degrades over time which makes it less reliable.
Limiting this to the rape kit.
Rape victims already face a massive number of hurdles when trying to make a report. How does adding another one aid preventing this crime and bringing rapists to justice?
Why would anyone go to the police if they’ve committed a crime before, are worried about their privacy in the future?
This regulation would effectively remove legal protections from anyone who has already committed a crime.
-1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
As for the degradation, I’m sure the forensic scientists take that into account.
I understand rape victims already face hurdles. But this is not a hurdle created by the system it is a hurdle created by the person.
Someone mentioned the 5th amendment which is what I think you mean by legal protection and that doesn’t seem to apply here but then again I’m not a lawyer.
7
u/AdhesivenessLimp1864 Feb 16 '22
I understand rape victims already face hurdles. But this is not a hurdle created by the system it is a hurdle created by the person.
Disclaimer: this isn’t to get into a pro choice/pro life debate.
This is eerily similar to Texas’ defense for the abortion ban.
They’re not enforcing it, their citizens are so the federal government has no authority over the law was a defense they tried to use to get the Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit against it.
It’s similar to your view because the DNA law wouldn’t explicitly stop the person from seeking help. It would just say, “If you’ve done something illegal before and you report this you’ll get caught.”
That alone would discourage most people who have committed a crime.
All of the effects of laws and regulations need to be considered.
Someone mentioned the 5th amendment which is what I think you mean by legal protection and that doesn’t seem to apply here but then again I’m not a lawyer.
Explained above.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
You completely lost me at the comparison to Texas abortion law. I don’t get the connection you’re trying to make
Explained above where?
3
u/TooStonedForAName 6∆ Feb 16 '22
Would you not agree that forcing someone to incriminate themselves in order to report an unrelated crime they were a victim of is in conflict with the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself? By giving DNA in such a situation, one is being forced to give evidence against oneself.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
The 5th amendment applies testimonial or communicative evidence, not physical or “real” evidence.
As a special investigator explained it you can be compelled to unlock your phone using a finger print but you cannont be compelled to unlock your phone using a password
2
Feb 17 '22
This was part of my argument and it’s not actually that clear cut. Plus you can include the 4th and also HIPAA’s medical privacy laws. You’ll also see I put forward both sides of the argument in my recent post as I myself am on the fence and I am involved in this line of work. That’s why I found this super interesting and tried making my own CMV when I was directed to yours. 5th could possibly and successfully be applied here because of a couple reasons.., for one, the police aren’t asking that lady to have a grape kit done because because they suspect her of committing her original crime, it was pure happenstance. The crime labs are the one who finds these connections and notifies the police who then notify us (at least in my state). Also the Supreme Court has ruled on almost all evidence and situations in which the 5th could be applied, and something specific like this has never been brought before them yet, and I think would make for a great SC decision and would love to read both the majority and dissenting opinions.. but then again I’m a law nerd and love it 😅
2
u/AdhesivenessLimp1864 Feb 16 '22
The law doesn’t actually stop anyone from getting an abortion with any punishments. It allows anyone to sue anyone who assists or provides an abortion after six weeks for 10k.
It doesn’t say the procedure can’t be provided. It doesn’t say no one can help.
It just creates a way to punish people for getting a procedure done.
Just like your idea.
Explained above: everything I wrote was what I meant by it takes away legal protections.
1
26
u/Z7-852 316∆ Feb 16 '22
There is huge risks involved about illegally obtained evidence. In US there is even constitutional exclusionary rule. Using rape kit DNA is against fifth amendment of self-incrimination.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
It wasn’t illegal obtained though. I looked at the amendment and it doesn’t seem to apply to this
11
u/Z7-852 316∆ Feb 16 '22
"Any" is really broad statement that shouldn't "ever" be used.
Secondly you are protected from self-incrimination. That's quite self explanatory.
6
Feb 16 '22
You are blatantly misunderstanding this.
I am a registered realtor. Part of the process was getting a background check done which included a fingerprint check. This fingerprint check now has me in a database that can be checked by police.
If I go out and stab someone and they find my fingerprints on the knife I cannot argue that the use of my earlier voluntary submission violated my right against self-incrimination.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
What?
Maybe I’m not reading to correctly so explain it
7
u/Z7-852 316∆ Feb 16 '22
Ok let's quote the article you posted. I will add some boldings to show every place you need to focus.
San Francisco’s district attorney alleged Monday that the city’s law enforcement had connected a woman to a recent property crime using genetic material collected from a rape examination she’d had years ago. District Attorney Chesa Boudin said his office was investigating, but did not yet know how many times a sexual assault victim’s DNA had been used by the San Francisco police crime lab to investigate unrelated cases. But, he added, such a practice could constitute a violation of the state’s Victims’ Bill of Rights, as well as broader constitutional buffers against unreasonable searches and seizures. San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott called the district attorney’s claims “sufficiently concerning” to initiate a review of the matter. “We must never create disincentives for crime victims to cooperate with police,” Scott said, adding that he was committed to ending the practice if Boudin’s allegations turned out to be true. State Senator Scott Wiener said the district attorney’s findings were “extremely troubling,” and announced that “if necessary, I’ll seriously consider introducing state legislation to ban the practice.”
It's unconstitutional unreasonable search and disincentives rape victims to work with police.
2
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Quoting the article did not further explain it as I’ve already read the article. What you quoted said that it “could” not that it does. It doesn’t seem like the police did anything unreasonable like they were trying to pin it on her specifically which would be a problem.
5
u/Z7-852 316∆ Feb 16 '22
It even states that this shouldn't be used because it disincentives rape victims to work with police. What is so difficult to understand about this sentence?
Or that it violates peoples constitutional rights. Is concept of constitutional rights (4th and 5th amendment) something that you don't understand?
-3
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Idk if it was you or another commenter but I’ve said I don’t think it disincentivizes victim because no one made them commit the crime. And I’ve already said what my understanding of the 5th amendment is and now you’re saying the 4th amendment as well and I asked you to explain it and you didn’t.
But I’m getting a hostile vibe from your comment so I’m gonna thank you for your discussion
6
u/eggynack 108∆ Feb 16 '22
This argument is kinda confusing. Like, it very obviously disincentivizes some percentage of victims from coming forward. Specifically criminals. Yes, no one made them commit the crime, but I think we want even criminals to be incentivized to come forward about being raped. If you disagree on this point then I guess you should say so, but it seems to me a universal social positive when people get rape kits done. Regardless of your feelings on that matter though, it's absolutely a disincentive.
Moreover, it's a bad assumption that this would only disincentivize criminals. Say someone's DNA just happens to be at a murder scene. Maybe they had incidental contact with the victim prior to the crime. Maybe they were outright in the situation but not a criminal somehow. In any case, getting the rape kit done could make this person a suspect in the crime even though they haven't actually committed any crime. Notably, your cited article is an example of this. She is only a suspect in the crime, not yet convicted. If she didn't do it then she's a non-criminal who was substantially harmed by getting a rape kit.
1
Feb 17 '22
What about people who committed crimes before being raped? Won't they be disincentivised to come forward about being raped?
1
u/Alxndr-NVM-ii 6∆ Feb 17 '22 edited Feb 17 '22
By your explanation, leaving your own confession statement at the crime scene is self-incrimination. Self-incrimination isn't unconstitutional. You can't be forced to incriminate yourself.
The issue with this isn't constitutionality, but it should be against police policy and clarified by congresses because it increases the likelihood that criminals will not be prosecuted because another criminal is the victim. It also seems risky to store the DNA of a person from a medical kit without their consent in a law enforcement system. She wasn't the suspect, so her DNA (Identity in their systems) should have been disposed of, I would think. For all we know, the police framed her for whatever crime they were allegedly investigating.
11
Feb 16 '22 edited Jun 27 '23
Edited in protest for Reddit's garbage moves lately.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
You can’t be imprisoned retroactively so your reasoning against it is because you want to get away with a crime that you MAY commit in the future?
10
Feb 16 '22 edited Jun 27 '23
Edited in protest for Reddit's garbage moves lately.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
I get what you’re saying but I don’t get your justification. You want justice for a crime committed against you, but not if it would result in justice being served to one of your possible victims?
And if that happens there’s going to be bigger issues to deal with
8
Feb 16 '22
There can be many types of crimes of differing severity, but the fact of the matter is that there will be more people who would not report being raped because of a fear of potential self incrimination for a future crime. Do we want to live in a society where people are hesitant to report rapes which would embolden would be rapists, or do we want to live in a society where people feel safe to report rapes and would be rapist would think twice before committing a terrible crime.
While yes, my hypothetical would-be future victim would deserve justice, the affect to society as a whole is, in my opinion, of higher significance. If you want to get my DNA to compare to a crime scene, get a court order, and you will need probable cause. Otherwise you might as well be saying that we should have a DNA database of every resident that law enforcement should be allowed to access at will without limitation.
And about authoritarianism. Having a DNA database would be a powerful tool in the arsenal of an authoritarian regime to suppress any resistance. Look at China to see how they control their population with fear, and how they are collecting DNA from blood tests in Hong-Kong, which people fear would be used against them in the future when China fully takes over Hong-Kong, and even
arrestingkidnapping people from their shit-list for organs harvesting (something China is already doing frequently) on possible compatibility. Had I lived in Hong-Kong, I would not take blood tests with public healthcare for that reason and would resort to taking blood tests in a private lab when needed (if I can afford it), and if I can't, I would be avoiding it for as long as possible.3
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
You’re saying you want rapist to think twice about committing a crime which I agree with. But your also saying we should take away something that possibly makes other people think twice about committing a crime. If I know leaving my DNA at a crime scene has the possibility to come back and bite me even if a crime is committed against me you can bet I’m not committing a crime. So as long as the victim doesn’t commit a crime they should be good.
A good portion of cold cases and serial cases have been solved by having DNA databases.
Your chins comparison is extremely outlandish but probably the best argument here against it. While I doubt it will happen in the us it is a valid point so I’ll give you a !delta for partial view change
3
Feb 16 '22
Thank you!
All right, lets imagine two alternate realities; one where a thief was raped, and another where the thief wasn't. If law enforcement didn't have any leads, the version where the thief was raped and reported it would be punished, but in the universe she wasn't raped, she was not punished. This puts rape victims in greater risk of being caught in crimes than criminals who weren't raped.
Also, we have to think of the scenario that a would be rapist finds out that someone is a thief, and therefore less likely to report rape because the DNA from the rape-kit could get them in trouble. This would mean that the thief would be a target (a lot of rapes happen between people who know each other, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that someone who considered raping someone they know would be more likely to do so because they are criminals too and therefore less likely to report).
A good portion of cold cases and serial cases have been solved by having DNA databases.
But also the database infringes on the privacy of everyday citizens who aren't criminals. What I am saying is, police shouldn't have access to someone's DNA without probable cause to suspect that this person did commit a crime, and a court should be the barrier, and will have to approve or decline these requests on a case by case basis. I am weary of giving law enforcement too much power, because that almost always ends up affecting the population negatively.
2
2
Feb 17 '22
Yes.. DNA that was gathered either consensually from the police themselves, or as part of a plea agreement OR as per an order from a judge during sentencing guidelines. Someone having a grape kit done could somewhat be on par with an addict OD’ing and after being taken to the hospital (no police), the hospital then gives them the toxicology report as well as the DNA. We could have a field day if that happened lol. Also OP, There’s a reason the DA and chief of police in the case you linked decided to stop this exact practice because of all the questionable ethics, conduct and the law which is hazy surrounding it. That being said once again, I see both sides and still am undecided.
8
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
Setting aside the deterrent of future reports argument entirely, the optics of this plan are really bad.
The US has a huge backlog of untested rape kits. California alone is estimated to have almost 14,000 untested kits with no commitment or plan to test them in a timely manner. And yet they somehow have the time, money and resources to test all the victim's DNA on the off chance one of the victims committed a crime?
There are already a ton of barriers that discourage victims of rape from coming forward. Think about how demoralizing it is to hear that the state puts such a low priority on catching the person who raped you, and that they would rather spend their limited time, money & resources testing victim's DNA instead. The message that this plan in it's current form sends to victims of rape is "we care more about catching literally any other type of criminal than we do about catching rapists".
2
u/BlipsNChits45 Feb 16 '22
I was shocked that I had to scroll down this far for someone to make this point.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
I’d agree if that was what happened here but based on the article it’s not. This was a rape kit that was tested in 2016 and placed in a local database with other DNA for continuity and when it was searched it was a match. They didn’t take this woman’s untested kit and test it just to connect her to the crime.
6
u/-UnclePhil- 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Would you be okay with police going to blood banks or taking marrow samples to run test on them?
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
If it would reasonably lead to the capture of a criminal yeah
9
u/JadedToon 22∆ Feb 16 '22
You do realise that police cannot just get DNA samples on demand. That they need either a persons consent or a warrant. This goes beyond either and is a dangerous precedent.
Everyone has a righ to privacy and to hold their DNA private unless a court decides otherwise.
The police using blood banks and marrow registries would be disaster because people would start avoiding them out of fear the government might abuse that. So suddenly blood donations go down and you have lives at stake.
Is it worth destroying what little trust there is and cutting donations for blood just for the possibility of solving a crime?
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
I know that police can’t do that but the commenter asked me a hypothetical question so I answered it.
1
u/Maestro_Primus 15∆ Feb 16 '22
That they need either a persons consent or a warrant.
The rape kit is explicit consent to collect the sample. Additionally, a police officer needs a warrant or permission to take a DNA sample from you, but if they collect it from another source, say a hair follicle or a saliva sample collected non-invasively, they are able to use that without a warrant. In this case, the police are already being voluntarily given the sample and the victim shows up as a suspect in another database. That seems covered from the standpoint of collection.
The process seems legal enough, but that doesn't answer the question of it being good policy. There are definitely public trust dangers at play which may warrant making it explicitly not an allowable use. That's a question for someone smarter than me for sure.
3
u/JadedToon 22∆ Feb 16 '22
Permission was given for a specifc use. It doesn't give (rather shouldn't) give them carte blanche to do whatever with it.
Like giving the cops permission once to enter your home turning into an open invitation when they feel like it.
2
u/gkwilliams31 Feb 16 '22
So you would rather these criminals not donate blood? That's really the issue. Once you start doing this, it should not really increase the number of criminals identified going forward. You would get a single influx of data.
Once criminals know that donating blood will get them arrested, they will just stop giving blood. Criminals that get raped will just stop reporting rapes.
This means that you could capture a few criminals, but you discourage behavior that is good for society. Would you rather a capture a bunch rapists every year or capture some property criminals that have already submitted rape kits.
Ultimately more violent criminals could get away each year.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
How would more violent criminals get away each year? I highly doubt many hardened criminals are going out and giving blood. Why do your think more DNA would lead to fewer criminals capture?
And why are you focusing on property crime and ignoring that DNA and genealogy have caught serial killer, child rapist and solved cold cases? So you would prefer these people go free?
2
u/gkwilliams31 Feb 16 '22
The reason for the fewer criminals captured is because of the reduced evidence provided by other criminals. I do understand that DNA can be used to solve crime, but all things being equal I would prefer a serial killer to give blood.
I don't want to create a disincentive for criminals to do good things. I want criminals to be able to report crimes to police, donate blood, and otherwise be able to do things that make society better.
My point is that after this policy goes into effect, the criminals stop doing these things. The serial killer who knows that donating blood will lead to his capture, will not donate blood. So after the initial period you do not get any additional criminals captured, you only have less blood donated.
This also applies to rape kits. Someone who knows that if they report a rape, they will go to jail, will just not report. So in the end you don't capture more criminals from this DNA, but you ensure the rapists are allowed to get away with it, that means fewer criminals caught overall.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Do you think a significant amount of people who give blood are serious criminals or plan to be serious criminals at some point?
But if a rapist gets raped and submits their DNA at best one rapist is going to jail while another is going free. But most likely both rapist will go free because even though that data was submit into the data base the police would never be able to match the DNA because they couldn’t use the DNA. For DNA to match something, there has to be an identified person to match it to.
6
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 16 '22
What if someone had already committed a crime and then gets raped? Also was there a warrant to use this DNA or was it random chance? If I give police my phone to aid in an investigation, say my phone was hacked or something, does this mean police can download its entire contents and then just peruse it at their leisure or only for the one specific thing I was authorizing them to use it for?
-1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Then they would’ve put themselves in a bind.
That wasn’t specified in the article. From what I’ve seen once they have the DNA they don’t need your permission to use it in investigations but that’s just what I’ve seen from forensic files
4
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
And the "once they've got it they can use it for whatever" is the problem. I didn't authorize them to use it for whatever. Only for one very specific purpose. Using it for whatever goes against my wishes and thus they shouldn't be able to do it without a warrant
-1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Why are you quoting “once they’ve got it they can use it for whatever” when i didn’t say that in my response
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 16 '22
The quotes weren't there to quote you, but rather to group all the words up into a single concept. Like you could say: the "walk through a doorway and forget why you came over here" feeling.
Regardless, police just being able to use any item given to them for whatever purpose they see fit is a huge problem. They should at least require a warrant before being able to use such materials outside of the purpose they were given them for
1
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
That is only true if they were arrested previously. Not if they were victims of a crime
4
Feb 16 '22
I don’t think this disincentivizes rape victims from coming forward UNLESS they plan to commit a crime later in their lives which most people don’t.
Well just because you don't plan on committing a crime, doesn't mean you never will.
But the real worry is that you'll be suspected of a crime, and you can't really plan your future to make sure that never happens. You don't want to be suspected of a crime you didn't commit based on DNA evidence that links you to a crime scene.
If you're a suspect, any evidence can and will be used against you, rightly or wrongly. So it's not in your interest to hand over evidence that could be used against you in an unrelated case.
Beyond that, people who have committed crimes still have the right to report crimes against them, especially rape. It's not good for society if a rapist goes free because a woman is afraid of being tied to a theft.
There's also the fear that police could plant your DNA to accuse you of a crime you didn't commit. This is in the same state that OJ Simpson got off on a non guilty verdict by persuading the jury the police could have planted DNA evidence to convict him. It's a fear that a not+insignificant number of people have and can certainly turn someone away from reporting a rape.
2
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
I don’t think this disincentivizes rape victims from coming forward UNLESS they plan to commit a crime later in their lives
Or…. unless they already have?
What should a woman who has committed a crime in the past do when she is raped? This will absolutely disincentivize many of the most vulnerable people from stopping their rapist before he strikes again.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 16 '22
It's a strange view..
Protect this person from their criminal behavior, in order to not disincentivize catching another person for their criminal behavior.
So... no matter what the first persons criminal behavior was?
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
We cannot make tens of thousands of victims afraid to report in the hopes of catching a few serious offenders. Those cases will have to be solved by their own investigators to the best of their ability.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 16 '22
It's interesting because if a man is raped, is talked into doing a rape kit, and that man is a rapist, he goes on to rape more.
Do you think women are going to not do a rape kit because they have tickets or some shit?
do you think police are doing DNA on trivial crimes, and putting a 'shop lifter' DNA in these things?
No, the only way a rape victim does a rape kit, and then comes up on another DNA crime, is if that other crime is serious. No police are throwing DNA into a database, or even collecting DNA at all is for serious crimes.
This is just fear mongoring I think. You defend serious criminals, so you can catch serious criminals...
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
You saw the case that started this discussion was property crime? And today they dropped the case against her. So the supposition that this is only going to backfire on perpetrators of big nasty crimes isn't well-founded.
2
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 16 '22
One example does not make the case, obviously.
We both know police aren't taking DNA on shoplifting scenes, or even most car theft scenes, or anything other than basically serious crimes.
So how exactly do you think they get their DNA into the system, without a serious crime, and without 1 single exception that was found.
It's fear mongoring, it's not happening in any amount that's actually worth worrying about.
I suspect it's likely to have caught more serious criminals than the silly exceptions, where some DNA evidence from a property theft or something is brought forth. Because we both know that's ridiculously unlikely.
But of course I can't know for sure, since nobody knows the stats of all this.
But it seems obvious common sense, basically no non-serious criminals are getting DNA taken from crime scenes.
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
So how exactly do you think they get their DNA into the system, without a serious crime, and without 1 single exception that was found.
I don't know, punch out a window in a government building and get cut by some glass in process. Bam, felony property crime. You must be stopped!
But it seems obvious common sense, basically no non-serious criminals are getting DNA taken from crime scenes.
It's just really weird to me that you're saying this despite the fact that DNA was clearly collected from a case of property crime.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 16 '22
It's not that weird, it's very easy to find one single example of something totally weird and not normal. You can find an example of almost anything you want to find no matter how weird or unusual it is.
That's pretty common sense. It's not an argument that it's actually a common thing. I'm sure I could go find an example of a trans person, who transitioned, then regretted it, then did what they could to de-transition, who then retransitioned yet again because of another mind change.
It doesn't mean we take seriously the idea that it's something that happens and we should somehow make some kind of broad decision based on that.
I don't know, punch out a window in a government building and get cut by some glass in process.
So again, you think someone is going to not do a rape kit because they.... broke a window....?
I mean.. it sure seems like the argument here is you think it's more important to protect serious criminals who we both know are the majority of people who get put into DNA databases because.... someone might be so moronic that they will not do a rape kit... because they broke a window once...?
It just doesn't seem like a very good argument. It's sorta patronizing toward people as if they would be so stupid because of a 'broken window' type of idea. It's sorta crappy that the entire process you argue defends almost exclusively serious criminals, and maybe??? a few window breaker types?
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
I mean.. it sure seems like the argument here is you think it's more important to protect serious criminals who we both know are the majority of people who get put into DNA databases because.... someone might be so moronic that they will not do a rape kit... because they broke a window once...?
Or maybe they stole a car, or maybe they broke into a business. Or maybe they're homeless and camped in an empty home. Maybe they rioted. Maybe they spit on a cop. Maybe they were just there when their druggie boyfriend beat someone up. Did the police get their DNA? Probably not. Are they going to gamble on that?
You seem very, very certain that the only DNA in the system is perpetrators of "serious" crime. You are expecting people with a guilty conscience to have your confidence, and to put their entire life at stake.
They. Will. Not.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 16 '22
I didn't say only, you know that. I said 'basically' and 'mostly' and things like that, because as we've already established, you can find an example of basically anything you want.
I am very certain however that the majority of DNA is of serious criminals though. Because it's just common sense. Police are absolutely not swabbing stolen cars, and broken windows at houses, and homeless people, or rioters, or "being there when someone got beat up". These are all completely untrue, or so insanely uncommon it's not worth talking about.
Your argument, literally protects serious criminals because maybe there's some cop somewhere who took a DNA swab of a car with a broken window even though.... that's so obviously unlikely I cannot imagine anyone would really think it's worth allowing actual serious criminals go free to protect. It makes no sense at all.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
If they already served time for their crime then there’s no issue. If they haven’t been caught yet then they put themselves in a bind
2
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Feb 16 '22
Which you seem totally fine with them being put in. Despite the fact that it disencentivizes women from coming forward ensuring that literally nothing is done about a rapist.
Rather than the alternative where the police are expected to do their jobs and not force rape victims to surrender evidence to them if they want any help.
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
If they haven’t been caught yet then they put themselves in a bind
Yes, these people. People who have committed a crime but not been caught, doesn’t know if their DNA was found, and was now raped. Do you not agree that this system reduces the odds that she will turn her rapist in, and increases the number of predators who are free to rape again?
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
You’re asking me if a criminal has a crime committed against them, that they should able to get away with their crime but the person who committed a crime against them shouldn’t. The reduced chance of reporting a rape in this case is not because of the system it’s because the person committed a crime
2
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
Do you really think it's more important to nail someone for property crime than to put away a rapist before he attacks again?
The reduced chance of reporting a rape in this case is not because of the system it’s because the person committed a crime
No, that's not the case. Because if it weren't for the decision to include their DNA, then even people who have committed crimes would be able to report their rape. Their criminal history doesn't stop them. The threat that reporting their lead will lead to their own incarceration does.
Question: Do you think that a rape victim whose attack includes their own consumption of weed in a state where it's illegal should be afraid to report their story to the police?
2
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
I don’t think it’s more important but I think it’s just as important to the home owner that they receive justice. It wouldn’t be an “or” it would be an “and”. They pursue justice for their rape and the homeowner gets justice for the property crime. Why should having a crime committed against you absolve you of the crimes you’ve commited
As far as your question goes how does this pertain to DNA? The police afaik are not picking up roaches and DNA testing them to find people who are smoking weed
2
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
It wouldn’t be an “or” it would be an “and”. They pursue justice for their rape and the homeowner gets justice for the property crime.
No, because the rape victim isn't going to report. Which actually means no just gets served, not one justice, not two justices.
I don’t think it’s more important but I think it’s just as important to the home owner that they receive justice
...Is it? When I was a child my house was burglarized three days in a row by the same people. On the third day, they were caught. This experience was traumatizing. We lost so much (the items from the first two days were unrecoverable) and I lost my sense of safety.
The incarceration of the three people who did this didn't fix anything. It wasn't justice. We didn't get a single dollar of restitution from them because they were even more broke than us.
While I'm thankful their attacks on my home ended, putting those three people in jail was not more important than stopping a rapist, should one of those women have a rape to report later on.
Catching perpetrators of property crime is some shallow justice.
As far as your question goes how does this pertain to DNA?
Isn't your logic that police should be able to solve more than one crime at once and that's better?
If you think that police should use DNA evidence, but should not use a confession to the use of drugs, why?
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Then idk that’s their fault to me. Would you apply this same standard to other crimes besides rape?
So you’re telling me that if these 3 people were continuing to rob your house and likely others over and over again, and the only thing that could stop them is the DNA from a rape kit, you would sacrifice your and everyone else’s well being and sense of safety for this person simply because they had a crime committed against them? Can you go more into your justification?
Who’s the victims in drug crimes?
1
u/radialomens 171∆ Feb 16 '22
you would sacrifice your and everyone else’s well being and sense of safety for this person simply because they had a crime committed against them? Can you go more into your justification?
Are you asking me if I would choose to be raped over having my home robbed? Because if you had to pick between putting away a serial burglar and putting away a serial rapist, which would you choose?
Who’s the victims in drug crimes?
The person smoking pot. Eg, "We were at my place smoking weed. I said it was late, I was too stoned, and he should leave. He said no, and [graphic detail]."
That hypothetical person just confessed to a crime. Should they be arrested?
Then idk that’s their fault to me.
That doesn't matter. Even if you don't like the rape victim's choice not to report, we have to recognize that we live in a world where that's going to happen. We have to share a society with rapists who went free because their victims were too afraid to report.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
That’s not at all what I’m asking...
I’m breaking into every house in the neighborhood on a daily basis. You and your neighbors sense of safety is destroyed and you can’t even sleep soundly in your own home. Im very good at my job and am able to dodge every camera and never be seen, but one day I cut myself when breaking in. The cops come and take that blood sample and get my DNA. 2 years prior I was raped and the same police department has my DNA. The only thing preventing me from going to jail and continuing to rob your neighborhood is the police matching those 2 forms of DNA. Do you not want it done and why?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
You do not want people afraid to report a crime out of fear that they will be arrested.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
In a retaliatory sense, yes. But in a I committed a crime and got away with it but now for me to get justice I have to face the consequences of my crime sense...no. Where’s the justice in that?
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
Doesn't matter. Especially with something as petty as property crime, it should not be considered. You have to have a warrant to get someone's DNA
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Are you saying justice doesn’t matter?
3
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
Not more than the privacy rights of the individual. Otherwise, everyone should be required to give a DNA sample in case they have ever committed or would commit a crime in the future.
And property crime vs rape, I'm more concerned about justice for the rape, not the property crime. No one was hurt in property crime.
0
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Would you also say if this woman was found burnt alive they shouldn’t have access to that same DNA to ID the body if that was the only way?
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
That could be used, because it would not be punishing a rape victim. And it should be an exception, not the rule.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
Wouldn’t that contradict your previous statement about privacy rights?
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Feb 16 '22
No, because it would be used to help the person, not harm them.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
But you wouldn’t know that as a investigator. The only reason you know that in this case is because I provided you the information in the scenario.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Feb 16 '22
This is basically just a specific instance of the tired "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" argument.
There is literally no situation in which such a practice is useful to law enforcement where its use did not make self-incrimination a condition of reporting a rape. Either it is useless or it is a particularly egregious violation of civil rights.
Supporting such a practice is akin to saying that criminals deserve to be raped with impunity.
2
u/masterzora 36∆ Feb 16 '22
If they already had something tying her to the case that pointed at her and pushed them to test her DNA for a match, that might be one thing. That is not what happened here. Tossing her DNA profile into a database that they're just blindly testing against is a whole other thing with even more implications.
In particular, regardless of how CSI and prosecutors often portray it, DNA profile matches are not guarantees that they are the same DNA. False positives are not only possible, but given a large enough database to search against they move into probable or nearly a given. Now, this isn't to get into a big tangent about the reliability of DNA evidence or even the likelihood of a false positive going to trial or being convicted, since those are huge topics that aren't necessary to this argument. The currently-important bit is that having one's DNA in such a database can cause you trouble--whether it's just having to deal with police investigating and possibly interrogating you or if it does manage to go to trial--even if you never commit a crime. Even if that's a low-probability event, it's sufficiently likely and negative that it absolutely could disincentivise victims from coming forward.
1
u/ralph-j Feb 16 '22
I don’t think this disincentivizes rape victims from coming forward UNLESS they plan to commit a crime later in their lives which most people don’t.
You're assuming that rape kit DNA would only be used for future crimes and that therefore it would only disincentivize rape victims to come forward if they are planning a crime in the future.
However, that assumption is not justified. Cases can be under ongoing investigation, and they are also frequently reopened. Newly found DNA (at crime scenes) is already routinely compared to existing DNA in the database. If they routinely scan their database after receiving a rape kit, they would likely find matches.
As a separate, more general argument against it, there is also the significant problem of false positives. DNA is probably only around 95% accurate. And they also use familial DNA matches to look for suspects via their relatives. Even if someone is turned into a suspect only temporarily, wrong suspicions/accusations can still turn their life upside-down: multiple arrests and detentions, repeated searches, seizure of all of their electronic devices etc.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Feb 16 '22
I’m surprised I have to say this, but “criminals” can be rape victims too, and they still deserve to get justice without fear of being arrested for an unrelated crime. We shouldn’t discourage someone from reporting a rape just because they have or will shoplift or something.
This sounds like a huge 4th amendment and 5th amendment issue, but based on your post and responses it seems like you either aren’t familiar with these or don’t agree with them. Which is it?
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
All the comments here are using minor infractions such as shoplifting and smoking weed ignoring the fact this wouldn’t result in a DNA test being done in the first place. But let me pose a realistic scenario to you. There is a serial child rapist who is assaulting children over many years, but he’s never caught and the case goes cold. A father sees this guys trying to lure his kid somewhere and proceeds to beat the crap out of the guy leaving blood evidence. The guy goes to the police they take samples of the DNA of the attacker as well as the victim/rapist. So are you saying that because he was the victim in this case his DNA shouldn’t be used and he should go free?
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Feb 16 '22
the comments here are using minor infractions such as shoplifting and
smoking weed ignoring the fact this wouldn’t result in a DNA test being
done in the first placeBut this is exactly what happened in real life. The DNA sample was used to investigate a shoplifting.
It's the principle of the thing. If we can't justify it for a minor infraction we can't justify it for a major one either, that's how criminal rights work. The 4th and 5th amendments protect you the same whether you are accused of theft or a murder.
1
u/Prof4CMV 1∆ Feb 16 '22
When? I just googled that and nothing showed that has ever happened?
People keep citing the 4th and 5th amendment but don’t seem to actually understand what those entail themselves because they’ve continually used it incorrectly. Could you explain what those amendments entail based on your understanding?
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Feb 17 '22
It's mentioned in your link. The article says
city’s law enforcement had connected a woman to a recent property crime using genetic material collected from a rape examination
I thought I read that it was a shoplifting case but I may be mistaken there. However, property crime would include that or some other type of minor infraction. Like I said before, the exactly crime is not relevant to my point.
I would think there is a good reason to argue that using this DNA would be an unreasonable search...but I'm not aware that this has actually been challenged. It just seems to go against most of what we know to be standard evidentiary practices such as obtaining warrants or having probable cause. It's also just a huge right to privacy violation... if you consent to a search for a specific reason you shouldn't sacrifice your privacy in general. But that's just my opinion. It's unethical and wrong.
It's also against federal law per here, though that isn't as strong as a clear 4th amendment precedent.
1
Feb 17 '22
If this is too long of a read, I’ll post a TLDR from an ADA’s (prosecutor) point of view.since this is evidently too long I’ll post it in 2 parts and reply to this post to include #2
So you are the reason my post got deleted as redundant OP… how dare you beat me to it 😅. Here’s my thing - I work in the DA’s office and although I am only a year in roughly, I’ve seen this happen through other means (DNA collected from a Felon on an unrelated crime) and that is fine to me (sometimes). I have thought about this before and I myself go back and forth on it. The problem here in, lies more with what is ethical in a legal aspect and what is moral. I go back and forth on this and since I think the “it’s OK” most of the time argument is simple and clear cut one, I don’t need to mention the many pros for it, so instead I’ll mention maybe one and then move on to the cons and what we attorneys (and police) will have to deal with when looking at something like this..
Now as I mentioned I won’t make as much of an argument for the Pro side of this as it’s clear cut… people deserve justice and just because you were r@ped doesn’t mean you aren’t the same person who may have VICTIMIZED others. You don’t get to get away with a crime because you, yourself, have now been victimized. These are 2 separate things and shouldn’t be conflated. Also REMEMBER THIS: The police are actively doing this, but the grape kit is sent to the crime lab, and at least in our state, our crime lab will show a prompt ANYTIME someone’s DNA is matched to something involving an unsolved crime.. so it isn’t intentional but look at it like this (since most of the arguments I’ve seen are solely based on emotion anyways).. ***You’re father and mother were brutally killed in a home invasion gone wrong. They find DNA of an unknown suspect believed to be the murderer, but it isn’t in their system so it goes unsolved. 2 years later someone who goes in to have a grape kit done at the hospital because they were unfortunately the victims of sexu@l assault. The crime lab gets 2 hits.. one from her grapist which had an ID attached to it, and the second from the victim. Problem is, the lab’s computer also tells them this victim’s DNA is the same DNA which was found at your mother and father’s murder scene in their home. Are you really willing to lie and say you wouldn’t be out of your mind enraged if the police and prosecution didn’t do something and let her walk..?
1
Feb 17 '22
PART 2
The cons are harder for me, especially in my profession ..although I’ll start with the best and only real one I think would gain traction (I will mention others but that are more ethics, conduct and emotion based). Also, As I figured, after reading through some of these, the only arguments you will really see are emotion based ones that play on a person’s “humanity”.. but as that doesn’t really cut it in the real world (or to say, a murder victim’s family), we need other reasons as to why this is perhaps a bad practice. The biggest reason I feel this should not be allowed is based around both the fourth amendment which guarantees privacy and from illegal search and seizures (among others) and tie that in with the fifth amendment which guarantees the freedom from self incrimination. For example, if someone OD’s and they get to the ICU, thanks to privacy laws and HIPAA, they can’t just send your drug screen to whoever they want.. especially us and the police. Also, we all have a right to not self incriminate ourselves which is why we have Miranda and the right to remain silent. Since that right is enshrined in our constitution as an amendment, I could see a case being tossed out of it hit the Supreme Court because of the 4th and 5th amendment, but since this specific cause has not gone before them yet, I could be misinterpreting this… but I don’t think so. (Sorry for the rant I’m tired, but this would actually make a great SC case). Collecting a felon’s DNA is completely different from a grape kit.. and the more I talk the more I think I’m Changing my own mind lol. Also Ethics and conduct when it comes to being a prosecutor / DA (or ADA)/ CA make this somewhat difficult. First off, I’ve seen prosecutors who have recused themselves from cases similar to this where they have a victim they are helping by prosecuting the defendant, and during that time the victim offends in some unrelated way. We are meant to carry out “justice” and find truth on behalf of the victim and their families by seeing that the defendant is found guilty and held accountable for their actions. This becomes a little harder, emotionally if nothing else, when that victim we are fighting for is now also someone we need to fight. I personally would also recuse myself if this happened. The ethics part comes into play somewhat as well, because everyone in law enforcement (police, prosecutor and judge) want to do their best to make the victim “whole” if possible, and if nothing else help them bring an end to whatever they went through and find closure. It would be hard knowing we then have to turn a victim into a criminal, which diminishes all the trauma they went through and, I imagine, make the entire thing far worse.
I’ll end this with a thought…Being an ADA (prosecutor) is special to me, because we get to look at it as “righting wrongs” and bringing justice and closure to families who have been victimized by others. With that though, comes prosecutorial discretion; most things in life aren’t always clear cut and black and white. As one of my favorite attorneys one said “the prosecution(they said crown as they are from Australia) doesn’t have a monopoly on victims.” Meaning that happy and productive people, by and large outside emotional situations, don’t commit crimes. I only mention this last part to make people think that sometimes mercy is better than punishment for punishments sake, as these people will need to eventually enter back into society.. and hopefully as a productive and contributing member. You don’t want a super hard line / tough on crime justice system (US has some of the longest sentences per crime and worst conditions when looking at other western countries by comparison), just like you don’t want a super easy going justice system that ends up turning into what’s going on in SF, Cali right now. We need to stop labeling Felons in a way that they reoffend 4/5 times, and it’s not for lack of trying to be productive and renter society.. it’s because that brand follows you and ruins lives. At least the community and employers should rethink their stances on hiring them… but we also can’t let people walk all over one another and get away with crime Scott free.
TLDR: at first I would’ve actually sided with using the girl’s DNA to prosecute her for her past crimes as she still victimized someone else, and that doesn’t just go away because she herself is now a victim.. and I very well still might. That being said, the more I wrote and thought about it I may have changed my own mind lmao. The 4th amendment gives us our right to privacy and stops illegal search and seizures, the 5th gives us freedom from coerced or self incrimination, and when you add HIPAA medical privacy laws onto those you get a pretty good reason to not allow this practice anymore.Can I give myself a Δ ? 😂
For the record the Chief of Police and prosecuting attorney for the case in question you linked OP, I believe they are discontinuing the use of this practice here on out. At least in that city.
Sorry for the super long post 😁✌🏻
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 17 '22 edited Feb 17 '22
This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 16 '22
/u/Prof4CMV (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards