Wisconsin lawmakers consider taking DNA at arrest
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — State lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require sheriffs and police to swab anyone arrested for a felony for DNA.
Twenty-one states take DNA upon arrest. Right now in Wisconsin a suspect must be convicted of a felony before he or she must submit a sample.
Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, a River Falls Republican, says taking DNA upon arrest like fingerprints and mug shots could tie a suspect to other crimes faster and save the state money on lengthy investigations.
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Wisconsin chapter taking DNA upon arrest, calling it too expensive and too invasive.
Oct 20, 2009 at 5:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Next it will be DNA when your six month's old just in case you wet your pant's
Oct 19, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Among the many reasons this is not such a hot idea is this: Currently, the FBI does not report 'partial' dna profiles--where the dna could not be linked to an individual, but COULD be linked to a particular family. However, they are being pressured to change that policy. If they succumb to this pressure, they would be able to say in a particular case that "we know that the dna comes from a male in the McDonald family. Thus, we'd like to get a warrant requiring all the males in that family to produce a sample for testing." So, whole families would then be 'suspects'. The more dna samples the govt. requires, the more 'partials' that could be matched with families, and the more families that could become suspects. Once again, a chill wind blows....
Oct 19, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Correct me if I am wrong but a swab is different than a blood sample, I do not know how the police would be able to use that to plant evidence once the swab has gone in for testing then a dna profile is in the computer. Is this how it works?? If so I could care less if they have my dna, I dont plan on commiting any felonies and if I do, well I guess I deserve what I get
Oct 19, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why not just change our laws to read "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT" and let the police, states attorney and courts do as they please with no regard for any kind of due process.
Oct 19, 2009 at 7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why do I get the feeling the people are not in control anymore?
Oct 19, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
And there have been cases of law enforcement planting evidence -- do we want to have "reasonable cause for doubt" in every case because we know that the police already had the suspect's blood, which could then have been spread to the evidence?
Sounds like a foolish plan to me.
Oct 19, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Are you mad yet, or will you wait until the government requires a permit for your life like they do in China?
Oct 19, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HMMMM not sure how I feel about this one. Yes it would help in other possible cases, but I also know that the law says innocent until proven guilty. That said I would hate for a innocent person to have to give up DNA solely because of a accusation instead of a conviction. Any other thoughts out there on this one?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.