KingSloth
Richard Ramirez is the GOAT!
So, I honestly don't know a lot about the science behind DNA. But I believe a lot of us are true crime junkies and have seen the true crime television shows where it's said that the chance of the DNA being someone other than the suspect is something crazy like 1 in every 66 Billion. Which is like saying that the chance of the DNA being someone else's is more than the entire global population.
What I don't understand is how can we know for certain that the suspect's DNA is so incredibly unique unless we were to DNA test every single person on earth? I mean we toss out these numbers based on limited knowledge and declare it as fact. I could be wrong about this, but it just seems a little fishy to me.
Also, I personally don't like the fact that the government, especially law enforcement can access the DNA databases of private companies. I honestly don't want murderer's and rapists to get away with their crimes, but at the same time, it feels like a violation of privacy. We've all seen cases like The Golden State Killer, where the DNA databases of private corporations are used by law enforcement to capture individuals suspected of violent crimes. Personally, I believe that there's a presumption of privacy that's violated by these invasive practices.
Now, you can argue that the individual willingly gave their DNA to the company to test, and once this DNA material is sent, ownership over it has been transferred from the person to the company testing it. Now, that may be, but what about when a family member tests their DNA, but their DNA is then used to find a family member that didn't consent to the DNA testing? Doesn't that violate the other person's rights? I mean they did not agree to have their own DNA tested, but the actions of a family member, is then used to justify gathering DNA evidence on the other individual who had no say, or choice in the matter.
Now, yes, law enforcement does perform confirmatory testing once a suspect has been identified. But shouldn't this be considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree'? I mean warrants to test the suspects DNA are granted based on information that the suspect had no say in. And even if the suspect did send in their own DNA, do you personally believe that should give the company ownership of said DNA? I mean yes, the DNA was sent in for testing, but it's a paid service. The company isn't being sold the rights to the DNA. It's merely being paid to test the DNA. Shouldn't ownership of the DNA information remain in the hands of the individual? If not, shouldn't the individual be compensated by the company for having rights to the customers DNA information?
I don't know, it just seems like a HUGE violation of civil liberties. A private database, held by a private company, shouldn't be accessible to government agencies of any kind, including law enforcement. And currently individuals are being jailed for life, or sentenced to death based on DNA science. Scientists are completely confident in the validity of DNA testing, but this wouldn't be the first time science was completely confident in something that later turned out to be false.
What do you think?
What I don't understand is how can we know for certain that the suspect's DNA is so incredibly unique unless we were to DNA test every single person on earth? I mean we toss out these numbers based on limited knowledge and declare it as fact. I could be wrong about this, but it just seems a little fishy to me.
Also, I personally don't like the fact that the government, especially law enforcement can access the DNA databases of private companies. I honestly don't want murderer's and rapists to get away with their crimes, but at the same time, it feels like a violation of privacy. We've all seen cases like The Golden State Killer, where the DNA databases of private corporations are used by law enforcement to capture individuals suspected of violent crimes. Personally, I believe that there's a presumption of privacy that's violated by these invasive practices.
Now, you can argue that the individual willingly gave their DNA to the company to test, and once this DNA material is sent, ownership over it has been transferred from the person to the company testing it. Now, that may be, but what about when a family member tests their DNA, but their DNA is then used to find a family member that didn't consent to the DNA testing? Doesn't that violate the other person's rights? I mean they did not agree to have their own DNA tested, but the actions of a family member, is then used to justify gathering DNA evidence on the other individual who had no say, or choice in the matter.
Now, yes, law enforcement does perform confirmatory testing once a suspect has been identified. But shouldn't this be considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree'? I mean warrants to test the suspects DNA are granted based on information that the suspect had no say in. And even if the suspect did send in their own DNA, do you personally believe that should give the company ownership of said DNA? I mean yes, the DNA was sent in for testing, but it's a paid service. The company isn't being sold the rights to the DNA. It's merely being paid to test the DNA. Shouldn't ownership of the DNA information remain in the hands of the individual? If not, shouldn't the individual be compensated by the company for having rights to the customers DNA information?
I don't know, it just seems like a HUGE violation of civil liberties. A private database, held by a private company, shouldn't be accessible to government agencies of any kind, including law enforcement. And currently individuals are being jailed for life, or sentenced to death based on DNA science. Scientists are completely confident in the validity of DNA testing, but this wouldn't be the first time science was completely confident in something that later turned out to be false.
What do you think?
