Mara Robinson Thanks all of You Who Voted Against Proposition 69
She understands and applauds your paranoid fears about your privacy. Although you failed, you worked hard to protect these fears, which, after all, are more important than catching her murderer after she had been declared a cold case. The criminal also has been linked to several rapes in New Orleans.
Proposition 69 scores its first victory. I hope it will be only the first of many. Just think, this man would still be free to rape and murder without it.
Excellent catch, Clam.
I’m sure the L.A. Times editorial apologizing for the paper’s unhelpful stance on this issue will be published in short order.
Patterico (756436) — 6/7/2005 @ 10:20 pm“YOUR
PAPERSVEIN, PLEASE!”The L.A. Times article linked by Clam is erroneous when it claims:
“The initiative passed by voters in November requires that DNA samples be collected from every person convicted of a felony in the state.”
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop69-title.htm sets it straight:
“Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for OR CHARGED with specified crimes, and submission to state DNA database; and; in five years, from adults arrested for OR CHARGED with any felony.” (caps supplied)
Proposition 69 is well meant, but flawed. Only the convicted should be DNA sampled–unless of course the concept of presumption of innocence is dead in American jurisprudence.
Clam will argue that casting a wider net will catch more criminals. By that rationale we should vote into law a proposition that routinely sends investigators house to house to tap every vein in the state.
clark smith (1e00af) — 6/8/2005 @ 1:32 amNah. A better idea is just to have hospitals take everyone’s DNA at birth.
Patterico (756436) — 6/8/2005 @ 6:10 amI hear that if we put surveilance cameras everywhere that might also help the government catch criminals. Even better, we might launch satellites and track people’s speed from the air, and we can ticket all those nasty speeders. I mean why not. And, and, and…I agree with Clark on this one. If it was just convictions I’d be fine with it, but the charged part I have a problem with.
Joel B. (3243ec) — 6/8/2005 @ 6:29 amPatterico is right, and I agree that this is what should happen.
Before you all freak out, remember that the government already takes your fingerprints and footprints at birth.
As Prop. 69 stands, if you’re charged but not convicted, you can request your DNA deleted from the database. That said, I don’t think you should- many people who get charged but acquitted of felonies have done something else for which they have not been caught.
Angry Clam (f05866) — 6/8/2005 @ 7:09 amI especially appreciate the last portion of the article:
It’s just a matter of time. We will catch up” to them, Flores said.
I look forward to more cold files being cleared
Pigilito (3d2d5f) — 6/8/2005 @ 7:19 amBefore you all freak out, remember that the government already takes your fingerprints and footprints at birth.
No it doesn’t.
Nels Nelson (741fd5) — 6/8/2005 @ 4:12 pmIn California it does. It’s part of the record kept on file with your birth certificates at the county recorder’s office.
Angry Clam (f05866) — 6/8/2005 @ 6:19 pmHeh, I would definitely remember if someone had tried to take a footprint from my daughter, and I would have liked to see anyone try to hold her still long enough to take fingerprints.
Hopefully the following clears this up:
“For those live births occurring in a hospital, and upon a parent’s request, a footprint shall be taken of the child prior to discharge from the facility and shall be made available to the parents. The footprint shall be placed on a sheet of paper that is separate from the birth certificate, shall only be prepared for the parents prior to discharge from the hospital, and need not be retained or kept on file.”
Nels Nelson (e88b48) — 6/8/2005 @ 9:54 pmFine, I suppose things have changed since the last time I was in a birth ward- I was informed that it was required.
Here’s a different one, then: the massive fingerprinting now being required of pretty much anyone whose job might put them within 10 feet of a kid (school employees, soccer coaches, etc.)
I don’t have a problem with that either. It’s not an invasion of privacy- it’s your damn fault that you leave personally identifiable oily residue behind.
Angry Clam (f05866) — 6/9/2005 @ 12:26 amThose are fingerprint checks, comparisons against the criminal database. The public is still unwilling to store biological identification of non-criminals.
Nels Nelson (e88b48) — 6/9/2005 @ 9:14 am