Why on earth would PMSH think we need another?
CALGARY — The feds say they’re also examining possible further uses for DNA, as Calgary’s top cop pushes for permission to collect DNA samples upon suspects’ arrests.
On Wednesday, Calgary Police Chief Rick Hanson said he’d like to see legislation amended to allow police to collect DNA samples upon a person’s arrest in order to clear cases faster.
Because, unless you are OJ Simpson, DNA evidence is almost infallible in placing suspects at the scene of a crime just as finger prints are.
My problem with the cretins that infest the Canadian courts and law enforcement isn’t the people they are taking into custody…it’s the failed liberal social experiments they are letting OUT.
I have no problem with keeping a DNA registry of convicted criminals, I am against tracking anyone they just pick up. Too many possible scenarios where this could be abused. Domestic false accusations come to mind right away, rounding up protestors (hey, conservatives may one day start protesting too).
@Greg–it will start with criminals, however, I can see it quickly morphing into a person having to submit a DNA sample if stopped for a traffic violation. Start letting your MPs know that this isn’t a good thing.
If our gov’t got more infested at high levels with Marxists and Maoists and other fascists, like the USA, and subsequently moved towards a massive all-intrusive police state, like the USA, this would certainly be systematically abused…”we need DNA samples from these people, go arrest them for something”…
I can see this starting out with the police ask for it to be volunteered. If you do not submit a sample,your ‘encounter’ with the authorities will not go smoothly. It will escalate until we all are in the database.Perhaps a swab will be required to get or renew a driver’s license. They will argue that some criminals only commit one crime and never get arrested again.
The old ‘if you are innocent,you have nothing to worry about’ argument will be dragged out and dusted off once again. It is a slippery slope. It may be interesting to see if the Quebecois will embrace it like they do the gun registry.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Being able to collect DNA on arrest would completely turn that on its head. You would be considered guilty until you cleared the database. Contact you MP and make clear that you are against any form of this being implemented.
So to be clear this would be done upon arrest BEFORE a conviction?
1984 much?
there is a difference registry of an object a GUN
registry of a person
a person is capable of committing murder
Just follow the same rules you follow for fingerprints and pictures.
Which I believe only when you have been arrested….not convicted.
No roadside DNA, just like they dont do roadside fingerprinting.
This is not the same as the gun registry, which was a registry based on ownership of a legal piece of property and had not real purpose. Capturing DNA upon arrest is fine with me.
Gets weirder though if the start capturing DNA at birth, like they do with footprints of babies.
Far too much room for abuse. Police can’t get a warrent for your DNA. No problem. Just arrest you on some trumped up accusation, take a sample, then release you without charge for lack of evidence. Unless of course their little warrant evading fishing trip results in a match.
Why? Because eliminating the gun registry got him votes. Not implementing a DNA registry won’t get him any votes. Why? Because people are idiots.
I just want to hear the Left’s arguments AGAINST such a registry. To hear them say things like it violates their rights, that it would be costly and prone to mistakes, that it turns honest people into criminals, etc.
Why not start by tattooing a series of numbers on everyone’s right forearm. Seems to have worked out well some 75 years ago.
No principles? No problem!
Register everyone in a DNA bank and allow bureaucrats to do whatever they want.
What could go wrong?
The DNA samples will only be kept for white males, firstly only of those w/gun licenses. Then expanded to include who are suspected of being infidels.
Stage 3 will include those CO2 footprint is too high.
Preliminary trials will be conducted in High River, Alberta.
Don’t worry, be happy.
The last 30 years of UN small arms legislating has been nothing but a bad joke. Given that the three greatest global gun runners sit as permanent members of the UN security council and have NEVER signed onto a small arms trade treaty – the whole exercise effects only those who legitimately make/own/sell small sporting arms, the military select fire version AK47 and M16 still floods into the world’s hot spots – but you never see rebels or terrorists armed with a Mossberg shotgun or Remington 700 bolt action – which these treaties effect.
The reason these treaties have been so convoluted and miss their objective is because the drafting process is permeated with anti gun prohibitionist NGOs which want civilian disarmament as opposed to the disarming of criminals, terrorists and rogue governments.
I had a deep laugh at the toxic irony of the current US administration puffing themselves up for finally signing a small arms treaty (which is certain to be voted null by congress because of 2nd amendment rights) when that same Dem administration was involved in 2 of the largest international small arms gun running operations to terrorists and drug cartels.
UN treaties are meant to damage or end sport shooting/hunting in free nations and disarm the citizenry while governments remain armed to the teeth and deeply engaged in global small arms trafficking as part of their operational foreign policy. It’s a bad joke that has become too tired to take seriously or be party to – so are disingenuous gun grabbing parasites like CfGC and their ilk who are ferried around the world on a free meal ticket to lush UN venues under the guise of small arms control “talks”.
What am I missing?
I understand the ‘slippery slope’ and the ‘if you have nothing to hide…’
To me…this is a good deal because it proves innocence as well.
My natural inclination is to distrust government and the people who work within that system, including politicans.
Is DNA all that different than finger prints? Both are unique but DNA is more conclusive and easier to obtain. I want bad guys ID’d and dealt with. Our current system does not seem to do that good a job at dealing with bad guys and not because of the tools they have to use. Criminal justice seems to invent reasons for letting these people out.
All this considered I suspect DNA’s use will spread no matter what. If a registry is created it should be restricted those ‘convicted’ of a crime. Any tool can be abused as we have seen with Obama’s IRS. I guess the citizenry will have to accept the responsibility of being vigilent.
As for Hanson – the man has gone completely off the rails – (this is a transnational phenomenon where police brass show open contempt for civil/legal rights – the new gestapo)
Police cannot keep personal records on unconvicted citizens period. Your DNA is your most personal individual possession – for the state to claim the right to take/keep samples of your body without just cause such as a conviction for a capital crime, is not only unlawful but a dangerous state intrusion on you charter legal rights. You just know it will be misused/abused. With samples of dn the ability to frame a suspect for a crime is almost too easy.
Gestapo talk from police brass in responsible positions should be slapped down in the most definite terms.
I don’t think it’s a good idea either. But how is this different than the current practice of finger printing everyone who is arrested? Isn’t this just the 21st century version of a 20th century practice we have tolerated for a century. If this is bad, why do we tolerate finger printing? All the arguments pro and anti both practices appear to be the same to me.
Glenfilthie @ 9:50 AM
“What am I missing?
I understand the ‘slippery slope’ and the ‘if you have nothing to hide…’
To me…this is a good deal because it proves innocence as well.”
I tend to agree however we are talking about the right to be presumed innocent. If DNA marking is an infallible test of innocence or guilt a suspect should have the right to refuse or (as you say if innocent, consent) to give a sample – it must not be demanded and taken – you are presumed innocent, compliance with testing of any sort which may or may not convict you must be voluntary – just as you have the right to remain silent to police interrogation and not be made to incriminate yourself in any way. As a suspect cooperation in a police investigation against you is voluntary.
The slippery slope here is breaching a hard fought for right to presumed innocence and fredom from forced self-incrimination. The US has this coded in the 5th amendment and we have it under Charter section 7, the impetus of which which goes back to the magna carta.
Let;s not let the fascistic reflex of police state legislating erode this primary freedom which set us apart from the European statist tyrannies of the past century.
yup. Occam, you have it rite. It is too easy to plant DNA, a little harder to plant finger prints. First they (the gov’t) needs to clean up the (in) justice system, that will stop a lot of crime. When ppl (read lefties) quit enabling the nare-do-wells we will have reached a millstone !
minuteman @ 10:07 AM
“I don’t think it’s a good idea either. But how is this different than the current practice of finger printing everyone who is arrested? Isn’t this just the 21st century version of a 20th century practice we have tolerated for a century.”
Finger printing suspects charged with non-indictable offences is technically illegal for the same reasons I stated mandatory DNA sampling is. Technically, finger printing misdemeanor/summary suspects is unconstitutional unless it is directly relevant to tie a suspect to a crime or is ordered/overseen by the court, however, police often stretch their power by claiming they need your prints on a number of summary or minor violations/investigations to positively ID you so they know the right person is showing up for court. If you have been made to give finger prints as part of criminal indictment procedure, you may demand they and other police records be destroyed upon being found not guilty. – as you say it isn’t right but it is done, you don’t object it becomes convention – you don’t exercise a right you will lose it.
Sounds good, yet look at reality. The RCMP destroyed property [kicking in doors] to those who had guns in their houses in the spring flood in High River. I think they have a copy of the gun registry, because only those who had guns in their homes were kicked in – even those that were NOT in the flood zone. There were no people in town, these gun owners were still considered criminals for owning a gun. Will those RCMP officers be charged with destruction of property and theft, do not think so.
Does seem to make the “letres du cachet” antiquated. So far the French Aristocracy have not been able to reinstate this.
I mean if the Liberal Party of Canada, you know the “natural governing party” were to once again be in power it would save a whole lot of time in not having to appoint a client RCMP Superintendent.The last one appointed by the Liberals PM Chretien, having to hang his head in shame as he left.
No we do not need to maintain an identifiable record of someone who is merely picked up and/or arrested. The Police mentality is everyone needs to be watched and the errors of individuals spending unnecessary time in prison is presently too great. Cheers;
They should just shoot all suspects as they find them. Well not if their black of course, that would upset white liberals.
Can someone verify whether DNA sampling can actually be done reliably with cheek swabs or a similar non-invasive procedure? When I had it done in 2004 they drew blood. The risks inherent in that are so high that even if DNA sampling is treated the same as fingerprints, that alone should disqualify it as a pre-conviction procedure.
The more personal information big brother has on me the more worried I become. If there is reasonable cause to need a DNA sample then a court order for a one time test is logical provided it isn’t socked away to use whenever. Using the fish net approach is overkill imho.
Wait until they take DNA swabs of suspects having “thought crimes”.
Daniel, yes, DNA testing can be reliably done with a cheek swab. I had mine done that way for a genealogy project and discovered the area in Europe where my paternal origin was.
I kind of agree with minuteman that this is no different than fingerprinting, but, and that is a huge but, there does seem to be a movement afoot to have each citizen documented in some way and that is dangerous. What if David Suzuki becomes prime minister or Al Gore president.
The IRS targeting of political opponents in the US and the High River gun grab are clear indicators of misuse of personal information and this DNA collection would be another tool in the hands of those who want to enslave us.
Someone said you have nothing to fear if you don’t break the law. Ask the German citizens of the Third Reich, the citizens of the Soviet Union, or the citizens of East Germany.
Chief Hanson, we may trust you, but we do not trust your successors when so many in our society want to jail any deviants to their social engineering.
Larry is right, who is next, Christians, Kulaks, and so on?
This mania for collecting information about everyone and everything is the current zeitgeist of the Mandarin Class in Western society. They can’t think of any other approach to problems than to register everything and everyone, then datamine it and print reports on it.
Lots of reports looks like progress. Less crime looks like a budget cut.
Coincidentally it generates enemies lists, which can also come in handy.
Wrong direction to be going in, CPC. You want DNA, you show probable cause and get a warrant. CPC was elected to reign in mandarins, not boost their progress.
For those saying you get finger printed when aressted….WRONG. I had the unfortunate timing of being involved in an accident.I was taken in,and the Gestopo wanted a pic and fingerprints.Told them to go eff themselves until I had been tried and found guilty.When my lawyer showed up,she wanted to know why I was being held for being stopped at a red light.Without all the gory details,she basically told the cops,release me,or she would make sure the two of us would own the Edmonton police dept.after the lawsuit. Worked like a charm,heh(maybe the fact her Dad and I served together helped)but I don’t think so.She is one of the rarest creatures on earth,an honest lawyer.
Ken;
I guess we are both hooped. I did the same ‘National Geographic’ swab. I suspect they have a nice little library of DNA results already correlated for use. I thought I could use it to establish a aboriginal claim back to Bavaria. Instead I ended up in the German area of Czech Republic. I don’t think they would pay as well? 🙂
“DNA evidence is almost infallible in placing suspects at the scene of a crime just as finger prints are.”
Actually, fingerprint analysis is an interpretive process which is open to error. Yes, yes I know that the experts have been telling us for 100years that fingerprints, the most common type of forensic science evidence, are unerringly accurate …but they’ve been lying.
Shocking, isn’t it? Makes you wonder what else they’ll lie about.
No more power until the legal system is cleaned up and resembles a justice system. Currently white males that may own guns are automatically guilty. If you’re on the inside with the RCMP and/or native not much happens. If you think the police need more power, you have no heart for Robert Dziekanski or Orion Hutchinson.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/no-jail-time-for-disgraced-ex-mountie-monty-robinson-1.1241676
DNA can be used for a LOT more than just identifying an individual. Screening for race, ancestry, and defects are just a few. Do we want the government saying “You have a genetic disposition towards X, so we won’t allow you to get married/have children/access certain services, including the health system/drive/own property/etc”?
Anyone who thinks government bureaucrats are not already considering this has no clue about human history.
The self incrimination argument is unlikely to hold water. Blowing into a breathyliser is also potentially self-incriminatory but the courts have held it to be permissable.
“You want DNA, you show probable cause and get a warrant.”
EXACTLY.
The U.N.’s Agenda 21 is starting to crush like a vice grip. The Conservatives had better not climb on board.
“He who will trade a little freedom for a little security deserves neither, and will loose both!”
This is a crazy proposal by the Calgary police chief but not surprising given the road blocks erected by the lawyers for their loser clients. Perhaps it is time to review some of the road blocks.
It seems that every time the police open their mouths I lose even more respect for them. Collecting DNA from everyone arrested is the most asinine thing I’ve heard in a while although the police seem to be determined to outdo themselves on a daily basis.
One thing that I have never seen done, and likely it won’t be done because it will destroy the mystique behind DNA fingerprinting, is to take randomly chosen samples from the DNA database and match those against the remaining samples in the database. Similarly, no-one has ever looked at matching every fingerprint in a fingerprint database against every other fingerprint held in that database. Probably the main reason that this hasn’t been done is that, should a duplicate fingerprint be found, it would destroy the infallibility of the presumption that fingerprints are unique. They are too simple a code to be unique in a population of 7 billion people.
When DNA profiles are constructed, a suspects DNA is amplified using PCR and a series of restriction enzymes are used to chop the now macroscopic amount of DNA to produce a series of DNA fragments which are then turned into a pattern using electrophoresis. From what I’ve seen of DNA “fingerprints”, there is insufficient information content to identify one person in 7 billion. Again, matching every DNA sample in a database against every other sample would give an estimate of what the chances are of a false match. The computing power to perform such comparisons exists but this is the last thing the totalitarian state wants done preferring to awe juries with pseudo-science in order to ensure convictions.
In the case of a limited number of suspects, the significance of a DNA or fingerprint match is far higher than a random fishing expedition through a fingerprint or DNA database. At no point have I seen estimates of positive and negative predictive values for DNA and fingerprint matches published. Lets just say that for the small number of subjects required in which there’s a high likelyhood that one is the actual criminal, a lot of police work is required. In the case of matching random DNA and fingerprint samples against a massive database, no police work is required.
Those concerns about the validity of DNA evidence don’t take into account individuals who are chimeras, something which is far more frequent than first assumed. Also, an individual who has had an organ transplant can have stem cells from the transplanted organ distribute themselves throughout their body and express the donor’s DNA. I’m just waiting for the case of a mass murderer who was never caught but died in an MVA and was a multiple organ donor and a jaywalking arrest of one of the transplant recipients resulted them in being charged with mass murder.
I would refuse to provide my fingerprints or DNA if asked to. Any police official who doesn’t understand the mathematics of fingerprint and DNA matching should have absolutely no right to demand a policy which makes it far more likely that an innocent individual would be charged with a serious crime. I suggest that the police donate their DNA to such a database first and we’ll see what kinds of criminal activities they will have been found to have committed.
WalterF >
The only caveat there is that your taking about a protected race issue with ex-Mountie Monty Robinson.
Had he been white, he wouldn’t have gotten off scott-free with murdering a couple of lowly white guys and lying about it. Pollitical Correctness would have had a white RCMP officer dragged through the Liberal mud for at least a few months with at least the possibility of some jail time.