First arrests under Florida's new DNA law, Pennsylvania also considers testing
forensicmag.com
forensicmag.com
Keep in mind that comparing a DNA sample to a gallery for the purpose of large-scale matching raises the false positive likelihood significantly. I’m not at all convinced that this could be done without convicting innocent people.
Some (older) types of tests might only compare a couple hundred locations, or not be particularly picky about how close a match actually is to be a match, etc.
And contaminated samples are a big problem
Realistically I think the existing criminal justice system would be hard put to claim a wrongful conviction rate lower than that, so... I'm not sure this argument cuts the way you want it to. If you have a 99% accurate test of guilt, that seems like more than enough probable cause to continue investigating, and probably good enough to convict with just a little extra corroboration.
While there's a privacy argument to be made, I really don't think you're going to get very far arguing that this is going to cause quality problems. Frankly I think it's likely to help with reducing false imprisonment (i.e. by fingering the right suspect earlier, before the wrong one ends up in court).
So if you have a database of 10,000 people and 1.1% false positive rate, you're likely to get several false positives. Unless you stop searching as soon as you find a positive, of course...
If you're facing a jury (as you probably are in a criminal case) people have been convicted on far less than this with no other corroboration. It's all in the narrative put before the jury and their understanding of the evidential burden.
I should be happy about this as it will accelerate the change to "DNA is useless without corroboration". Unfortunately, too many poor people will wind up convicted based on this kind of useless evidence before someone rich comes along with expensive enough lawyers to put a stake through it's heart.
PCR easily picks up unrelated people: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-mur...
Contamination is hard to avoid under good circumstances. Taking swabs from everyone arrested is not going to be done under "good" circumstances most of the time.
Also, at least the states in the linked article only do it for those who're convicted of certain crimes, not merely those who are arrested.
Also, Alabama applies it to arrestees for felonies--effectively any drug charge.
That means "Arresting officer smelled weed" gets your DNA scooped even if you are later found innocent.
The state (or the mom) sure isn’t going to volunteer to pay to raise the child if it can avoid it!
Really makes you wonder what the point of the state is
1) raising a kid is very expensive, both in time and money.
2) no one wants to pay if they don't get something out of it - or if they can get away with not paying. Which, perfectly rational. Do you decline the standard deduction when you do your taxes? Same idea.
3) the bio father in these situations is well aware he won't get anything out of it except pain and suffering from the Mom (or just flat out isn't interested), or he wouldn't have bailed.
4) the bio mother already is going to do the child raising - so she is going to put in a lot of time (and will have control). It would be pretty stupid for her to also do a ton of work to make money on top of it if she's going to do that, unless she really has no choice.
5) If someone doesn't pay/end up on the hook convincingly, then the taxpayers will end up dealing with a criminal child, or a dead/starving child, and/or a bunch of emotionally manipulative 'but he was such a good kid!' crying after someone ends up dead, which taxpayers ALSO don't like.
So the state is there to make SOMEONE pay, ideally the person most easy to convince is responsible and able to do so, or alternatively whoever can pay/afford the most that they can force to do it.
Because if the State ends up paying, then that means the taxpayer ends up paying. I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up paying for some idiots kid if I don't have to. I didn't even get laid! Talk about a shitty deal.
Maybe that's better than the resulting crime and heart string pulling, but honestly it depends on the day. Especially if the crime and heart string pulling ends up happening ANYWAY.
And if you think I'm a heartless bastard, check the budgets for these kinds of programs vs law enforcement. Near as I can tell, I'm the EMPATHETIC AND KIND ONE in the equation.
It's also why in many cases, the state is actively avoiding things like making abortions more accessible, mandatory birth control, etc. etc. They need more bodies.
And that.... is why large scale DNA databases are also becoming popular. Also catching 'hard' criminals, of course. The state is trying to identify 'the one who got away'.
The state doesn't particularly care if the person pinned is actually responsible, as long as it can convince itself and ideally them that they are the one responsible - and can make them pay. Such is bureaucracy. Have to keep those stats looking good.
The other 'big' options - no State, or an ineffective State is arguably even worse for everyone except dudes trying to get laid without the consequences. Because women will want to have sex, on average, and many will have babies even if it involves self sabotaging their birth control or the like. Same with men.
Women trying to get laid without consequences usually get a pass of course (unless they get abortions or are on birth control), until after the kid shows up and they're stuck, then shame on them, tsk tsk. That way the guilt hopefully means they'll actually take care of the kid instead of pawning them off on the grandparents or abandoning them at an orphanage to go have fun.
You're welcome.
Now ideally, the Mother has enough emotional regulation and self control to only have sex with men who are responsible, loyal, provider types - or that can be convinced they are the only ones she is having sex with anyway. Since birth control is not perfect, and 'surprises' are exactly what lead into this type of situation. Dudes will of course do their damnest to have sex with her anyway if they can.
And can integrate him into the experience so he can see that he IS getting something - someone he can help mould, that will care about him in his older age and help him succeed, that will be loyal, carry his line forward, etc.
And can use that to get him to not only support the child, but work hard to support everyone while she spends the time and energy necessary for the child to grow healthy, and succeed. And support her later when she's less sexy and life is harder, and his 'value' is now higher than hers.
Easier said than done. But that's been the ideal 'deal'. Sometimes, it even happened (or happens).
If we're to dig to find some upsides, you could at least come up with something like "we'd know if someone has a major genetic disorder".
If we had a system to read all your messages, see all your pictures, listen to all your conversations, and check all your locations it would only be used to stop terrorists and pedophiles.
Are you missing a "not" in there?
It would be proof of sex, but not proof of assault.
It all seems to make sense and then it jumps the shark on the 3rd from the last paragraph and then starts talking about politics
Nothing’s free
It’s a poisonous world for a young man with fame and fortune. Let them learn the lesson that there is no such thing as free sex. There are always expectations.
Meanwhile, the day after Bauer’s vindication video, Hill was yukking it up on comedian Alex Stein’s show.
The self-described recovering alcoholic smeared Bauer, saying “several different women” had accused him. She played the victim: “I just didn’t know that it would reach this level of hate for me.” She claimed bad lighting was to blame for the absence of injuries in her morning-after video.
“That video was taken with no lights on in the room … So a lot of differences between natural light and all that stuff … If you zoom in, the scratches are all there. You can’t see if there’s a shadow on my face.”
It will never end until there are penalties for making false allegations that ruin a man’s life.
Hill needs to be charged, like Jussie Smollett was for faking a hate crime.
Without consequences, malignant behavior only proliferates.
Nancy played a fool
Silly Kevin McCarthy. He trusted Nancy Pelosi.
In his valedictory speech, the vanquished speaker casually let slip how his Democratic predecessor stiffed him.
“It’s interesting. It was in this room after we had won the majority, and I became speaker and Nancy Pelosi came to me and was speaker at the time on the way out. I told her I was having issues with getting enough votes. She said, ‘What’s the problem?’ ”
McCarthy confided in Pelosi that the holdouts wanted him to agree to a rules change that allowed any single lawmaker to file a motion to oust the speaker.
“And she said, ‘Just give it to them. I’ll always back you up … because I believe in the institution.’ I think today was a political decision by the Democrats.”
No kidding, Einstein. If for no other reason, McCarthy’s naivete disqualified him for the job.
At least he got in a final swipe when he had Pelosi thrown out of her Capitol office.
Nun stuns at UN
I was lucky enough to see a preview recently of a brilliant, uplifting movie that opens Thursday, “Mother Teresa & Me,” which I highly recommend.
Interestingly enough, the preview was at the United Nations headquarters, where the film’s theme that all life, from conception to death, is precious, seemed wonderfully subversive.
Let’s hope the good nun’s legacy has a purifying effect on the Turtle Bay complex.
Here's another one's harrowing tale of survival:
> “The Defendant swiftly caught me off guard and held me at knife point,” her court filing stated. “The Defendant placed his jagged steak knife to my throat. I was stunned and did not dare to move. The Defendant asked me, 'Have you ever been held at knife point?' to which I hesitantly respond, 'No.' The Defendant took a deep breath in and exhaled. The Defendant's steak knife scratched my throat as he released me and I got up from his lap."
> Two days later, she described a more violent encounter with him and said he raped her.
When people pull weapons on me, I don't hang out with them anymore. Everybody says men are dangerous and I don't want to get raped by a psycho with a knife.
The only reason to go back to that is if you knew what to expect. She was a one night stand who saw him more than once. She's alleging aggravated rape for fuck's sake, and yet no criminal charges were filed. This just looks like she's soliciting CNC to commit sextortion.
There's some more drama with this one involving a payoff for an abortion she never received too. It's shameless and disgusting. He should know better by now.
Most of the problematic sexual assault cases are "he said/she said" and not "identify a complete stranger".
Running any experiment with rare outcomes almost always results in far more "false positives" than "true positives".
And this is before we even get into discussing what happens when the db gets compromised.