Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should a victim's DNA be used against her as evidence of another crime?

My own leanings aside, this one seems like a juicy issue with two sides.

I get privacy rights, but I also get the interests of society in convicting criminals and not allowing the law to be "abused."

My gut feeling is, we shouldn't let guilty people go free just because they may have been victims in the past, but it kind of raises the question of whether a victim of a crime should report it to an indifferent and impartial deep state that might someday later use it against her.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/this-police-departments-dna-collection-was-so-unethical-new-laws-will-likely-be-made-preventing-it-from-happening-again/

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Ontheroad · M

I want to say yes, that if you have committed a crime, you should be charged even if it's a result of a crime against you. The problem with what I want to say is that this very thing could prevent a person from reporting a crime in fear they will be charged for some other crime.

So for me, it's a maybe, but for sure if so, then with restrictions as to what type of crime a person committed.

TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M

No. DNA should never be allowed to be used for a different purpose than what it was obtained for. That's a very dangerous path to walk.

View 1 more replies »

TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M

@bijouxbroussard I think I read about that case. If it's about a serial killer/rapist that changed their modus operandi multiple times through the decades who finally got caught at his old age.

I don't feel that it's the same concept though. In this case they linked him to the crimes through DNA that was obtained voluntarily from some of his relatives for the specific purpose of solving those crimes. His personal medical privacy wasn't violated. I wouldn't have an issue with this. This tactic has also been used in my home country to solve two high profile murder cases.

If it was done similarly as the woman who had the rape kit and was later connected to the theft, I wouldn't have supported it. Even if the good far outweighs the bad in the case of a serial rapist or killer. Once you go down that path, there really is no limit to it.

Once you use stored DNA for different purposes then that's the end of medical privacy. They could obtain your DNA from any medical procedure and store it in one big database for life. I'm sure there are also plenty of commercial parties that would have an interest in obtaining it. Not to mention the risks of poor cybersecurity, which most governments are infamous for.

bijouxbroussard · F

@TheGreatLeveler That makes sense, and I agree. One fallout from this incident is with rape being underreported here anyway, a victim who knows they’ve been involved in even a petty crime would be less likely to come forward.

TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M

@bijouxbroussard They'd be less likely to have a DNA kit taken, knowing it could be used for any other purpose in the future. People might even be less willing to have necessary medical procedures in that scenario. Back in 2017, it was actually proposed by the ministry of justice in my home country to use DNA obtained by medical procedures, and link it with the criminal databases, to solve crimes. So it's not that far-fetched, and I think more countries will eventually try to push these sorts of legislations through at some point in the future. Combining big data with medical records will be the death of any privacy that people have left at this point.

Spoiledbrat · F

I don't see why not. Who cates how they find someone guilty of crime they committed as long as it's authentic.

Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M

Cops lie and courts are complicit. Personal experience.

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

This is why I don't volunteer my DNA. Sorry 23 and Me

bijouxbroussard · F

That’s a tough one. In the interests of justice, dna has freed innocent people—and even proven innocence posthumously. At the same time there are rights against self incrimination.

View 3 more replies »

SW-User

@bijouxbroussard I may be mistaken but I think you can also still be arrested if you refuse to take breathalyzer test during a traffic stop on suspicion of a DUI

MistyCee

@SW-User I respect Holmes, much as I do Tawney, Jefferson, Chase, Marshall, Madison , et al, and I even respect Scalia's attempt to to beatify them.

Holmes, in my personal experience, was a genius in terms of identifying issues and exploiting them, but his greatest virtue was never going beyond the case at hand.

bijouxbroussard · F

@SW-User Yes, that is so in my state.

SW-User

The good outweighs any (perceived) bad here. And any perceived bad is more rooted in emotion than reason.

Let's remove "her" and "rape kit" from this entirely, and put everyone into a DNA database at birth, just like (e.g., in the US) everyone receives a birth certificate and social security number. Anyone in the database may live their entire life without committing any crime, or having their privacy invaded (e.g., Facebook would have no right to access such a database, anymore that it does now in the scheme of people only being entered into the database upon commission of a crime ... a DNA database is not a "privacy" issue). And if someone does commit a crime, it will be quicker, more efficient and less costly to prosecute and convict them, with lower risk of imprisoning (or worse) the wrong person.

Moreover, when everyone remembers they are now in the database, it may also serve as a bit of a deterrent to committing crimes, at least ones that are not extensively premeditated.

Ideally every country would do this, so when foreign nationals commit crimes in other countries, law enforcement agencies (e.g., Interpol) can easily work together when necessary.

Moreover, whether you're a victim in year one, or a perpetrator in year two, these are separate events and should be treated accordingly. No perpetrator should get a pass because they were also a victim at some point.

Whether or not adults may want to voluntarily allow other services to access their central DNA record, or additional DNA should be collected and submitted to separate, service provider-specific databases (e.g., 23andMe, or your doctor) is a separate, secondary consideration.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@SW-User Winner, winner, chicken dinner. That's exactly what they need to do. A cheek swab from every person residing in the United States. Honestly, it's overdue.

Ynotisay · M

@SW-User Well-stated. I agree. There's plenty of things where our "privacy" is impacted for the safety/protection of others. Cameras in public are now ubiquitous. Is our privacy under attack when we walk in to a store? Or is it a tool to identify criminals who, potentially, could put us at risk. The guardrails around collecting DNA at birth would need to be big and strong. But I think it's doable.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

I don't necessarily think that's unethical. The problem with DNA collection is that too many people slip through the cracks because they've never committed a crime before in their lives. And the state and federal government only have your DNA on file if you've got priors.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

View 4 more replies »

MistyCee

@RogueLoner Ninetimes out of ten, you'd probaby never get asked the right question to strike you for cause.

We really can't afford a perfect justice system, but there's nothing stopping you from being honest with a judge and saying to think science is bs in voir dire.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

MistyCee

@RogueLoner Good for you!!!

The role of "scientific evidence" and expert testimony is still kind of a mess, but the current idea, after a gatekeeping, keep out the wacko nutso crap bullshit on the part of the judge, seems to be to let jurors weigh the testimony of opposing witnesses, which, I personally think is the best solution.

Most of my time is spent on the gatekeeping, i.e., folks who say DNA is infallible no matter how its collected or analyzed or that it's all crap anyway, but I've always liked the idea that a jury should get the chance weigh evidence and witnesses testifying about evidence.

Ideally, a jury should never get a case without two sides, imo. The judge should have tossed it out.

Add a comment...