logo Sign In

Ethics — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Very true. There have been numerous criminal cases that have been thrown out based on invasion of the body. I remember one where a doctor provided a blood sample to the police of a drunk driver. We can say that this is all noble and getting a drunk driver off the road, but consider the implications of allowing this type of evidence: it means that a doctor can use a part of your body to incriminate you by obtaining that part for another purpose. The charges were dropped for that very reason.

What I am saying is simply this: when it comes to your own body, you should have the final say on how parts of your body are to be used. No one should be compelled to give a sample for the "greater good", and laws should not be redrafted to allow this kind of invasion.


stupid question but it should be noted, how does DNA evidence enter in then, DNA is a part of your body and it can be used to incriminate you.

and i think you should rephrase that to no one should be 'forcefully' compelled to give a sample, cause i think thats what you mean right gun.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Shimraa
Originally posted by: Bossk
Well, when you consider the billions of dollars that have been spent on HIV/AIDS reasearch and the possibility that there is a cure right here inside this man, I think governments might try to change the law so they could save the money. But they would do it under a giant guilt trip. They would mount a pro-cure campaign intended to make this guy look bad and guilt the hell out of him.


the large majority of that money is put up by drug companies, universities, and charities, not the government.


A big chunk of it is footed by tax money as well. Tax money that our government would rather spend on just about anything else like military and homeland security.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
DNA evidence is taken a couple different ways...

When it is collected from a crime scene, it is because this DNA is out in the public and the person who owns it has given up rights to it. It is effectively public domain.

When a sample is taken from a suspect, they are asked. It is not just taken as that would be illegal. However, if a suspect were to decline giving a DNA sample, they are pretty much admitting guilt by denial. It's like saying no to taking a breathalizer test as part of a field sobriety stop. If you say no, it's likely because you are drunk and don't want to incriminate yourself. If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide and should just submit to the test.

Cops can't walk up to a suspected criminal, tackle him to the ground, and just swab his mouth for DNA. That's illegal.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Bossk
DNA evidence is taken a couple different ways...

When it is collected from a crime scene, it is because this DNA is out in the public and the person who owns it has given up rights to it. It is effectively public domain.

When a sample is taken from a suspect, they are asked. It is not just taken as that would be illegal. However, if a suspect were to decline giving a DNA sample, they are pretty much admitting guilt by denial. It's like saying no to taking a breathalizer test as part of a field sobriety stop. If you say no, it's likely because you are drunk and don't want to incriminate yourself. If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide and should just submit to the test.

Cops can't walk up to a suspected criminal, tackle him to the ground, and just swab his mouth for DNA. That's illegal.


I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.


Difference being that they agreed to it as part of their rehabilitation, probation, etc. No one forced them to sign on the line saying that they had to do this. They could have gone to jail.

This guy who was cured of HIV has a choice as well. He can submit to more testing (and he's probably been through a ton already in his life) or he can just live. Thankfully, his choices are a bit better than the guy in your rehab center, but it's still a choice. You can't take that away from him. Or, at least, I hope you can't.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Bossk
Originally posted by: JediSage
I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.


Difference being that they agreed to it as part of their rehabilitation, probation, etc. No one forced them to sign on the line saying that they had to do this. They could have gone to jail.

This guy who was cured of HIV has a choice as well. He can submit to more testing (and he's probably been through a ton already in his life) or he can just live. Thankfully, his choices are a bit better than the guy in your rehab center, but it's still a choice. You can't take that away from him. Or, at least, I hope you can't.


In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Criminals give up their rights once convicted, for the period of their incarceration. The SCC may say otherwise with regards to voting, but R. v. Sauve was a weak judgment.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage

In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.


I think this has the intend of being practical, instead of unethical or "orwellian". An "orwellian" situation would be to monitor that person's life forever after he has been released from prison. By collecting a sample of DNA they are basically gathering one more piece of information that could be use to identify possible criminous, which infact ARE commited by ex-prisoners. How different is taking DNA than taking a photo or your fingerprints? I belive it's not a question of being ethical or not.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Bossk
Originally posted by: JediSage
I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.


Difference being that they agreed to it as part of their rehabilitation, probation, etc. No one forced them to sign on the line saying that they had to do this. They could have gone to jail.

This guy who was cured of HIV has a choice as well. He can submit to more testing (and he's probably been through a ton already in his life) or he can just live. Thankfully, his choices are a bit better than the guy in your rehab center, but it's still a choice. You can't take that away from him. Or, at least, I hope you can't.


In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.


As some of you know I am married to an American and currently in the process of applying for a visa. As part of this process I am required to give a retinal scan and fingerprints. I have no criminal record, nothing bad at all in my past, and I work for the british government. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's either that or no visa, so I will have to do it.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: JediSage

In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.


I think this has the intend of being practical, instead of unethical or "orwellian". An "orwellian" situation would be to monitor that person's life forever after he has been released from prison. By collecting a sample of DNA they are basically gathering one more piece of information that could be use to identify possible criminous, which infact ARE commited by ex-prisoners. How different is taking DNA than taking a photo or your fingerprints? I belive it's not a question of being ethical or not.


What's to stop them from collecting DNA from everyone? The case could be made that everyone is a potential criminal. Where does it stop? It's not about what the person has done in the past, it's about an unspoken assumption that they will perpetrate another crime in the future, which has serious legal ramifications in the United States. As far as photos and fingerprints go, I'm under no obligation to provide either, for any reason. The only time I've given my fingerprints voluntarily was when I filed for a permit to carry firearms within my city limits, and it's debateable whether or not that's legal. However, with the way companies are putting cameras and RFID devices everywhere, it's a moot point.

YIYF...I've heard that there are now 9 surveillance cameras for every 14 people in London. Does that sound right?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: JediSage
YIYF...I've heard that there are now 9 surveillance cameras for every 14 people in London. Does that sound right?

Possibly in the city centre, but not in the area I live. If that was the case the fucks who robbed my bro would be caught by now.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
You are not legaly obligued to provide pictures or fingerprints in the US? Over here, we must have a personal ID which has photo and fingerprint, and you cannot do anything without that ID. When getting into the US, brazillians (and some other also "non apreciated" nationalities) must take two photos and taken all their fingerprints out (digitally) before getting in. And I don't think that's intrusive at all, I think it's practical. I mean, it's not all crime related: what if I go to the US and get into an accident and lose my memory, get into a coma or die, and my documents are lost, how will they know it's me? If I had to give DNA samples to the government identify me, I would, no problems.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Never mind.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Here my take on the blood sample thing. I think he should be forced to give a blood sample. Its a simple choice, his right to privacy or millions of people's right to live. True, they MIGHT be able to find a cure another way, but what about those that die because it took longer to find the cure? Yes, even if they do get in his blood they still might be unable to cure the disease, but I think it is worth the risk. As was said before, the needs of the many outweighs the need of the few, or the one. Spock said the same thing in Star Trek II. It is inescapable logic. Are drafted soldiers given a choice? No, they are forced to join the army and risk their lives for the somthing more important than themselves , their country.


Originally posted by: Bossk
It's his body... his decision. Plain and simple.

Would you say that if someone you knew - a family member[s), friend(s), or youself was going to die because this man's "choice". Point is, this isn't just about his body. It's about all the other bodies that have this disease. And if is a choice of forcing him to live like a lab rat or letting millions die, I think the choice is clear. Sorry Bossk, but that is my honest opinion.


Originally posted by: JediSage As far as photos and fingerprints go, I'm under no obligation to provide either, for any reason.



I think you could be forced to have fingerprints taken if you were a suspect in a crime. I believe the same holds true for DNA. I believe the cops would need a court order first. Like search warrents. Of course I could be wrong, I am not a lawyer.

Originally posted by: JediSage


I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.


I don't think its Orwellian, I think its a logical precaution. It is reasonable and logical to think these people might comitt crimes again. They are not taking a presumption of innocence away from these people, if they are suppected of a crime, they would still get a fair trial, and they guilt beyond a reasonal doubt. In New Jersey, we have somthing called Megan's law. It requires that the residents of a town are notified that a convicted sex offender in moving into the area. The reason? So that people can take reasonable precautions agaist these kinds of sick people. An 8 year old named Megan a sexually assaulted and killed by a sex offender who living down the block for her. Had the parents known that the sex offender was living so close, they could have kept a closer watch over the kid and maybe she would not be dead right now. Is wanting to save an 8 year old girl from being sexually molested and murdered Orwellian?