Is DNA Profiling Racist?

[IanC]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

Ya, I mean why in hell would we want to catch criminals? I mean so many are black it just isn't fair.

 

[Mini 14]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

I think before you can answer that, you have to answer the question "Why are their fingerprints already on file?"

 

[Ravi]

Another thread by a "conservative" bashing black people. Big surprise!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another thread by a "conservative" bashing black people. Big surprise!

Another IGNORANT post by the board RETARD, BIG SURPRISE.

 

[IanC]

Another thread by a "conservative" bashing black people. Big surprise!

I am a liberal, and it is an interesting question because it seems to have a straight forward answer but the legal ramifications are anything but clear.

 

[IanC]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

I think before you can answer that, you have to answer the question "Why are their fingerprints already on file?"

Obviously they are on file because of prior involvement with the justice system. Am I correct in assuming that you think the justice system is the reason that blacks are over-represented rather than the demonstrable explanation that blacks commit more crime?

 

[mudwhistle]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

 

[IanC]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

 

[mudwhistle]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

I see a bit of hyper-sensitivity here.

 

[IanC]

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

I see a bit of hyper-sensitivity here.

really? It seems to fit into a Miranda type situation. and so does setting up the DNA database system to search for partial matches.

the invasion of privacy, the scary slippery slope of connecting blood lines to crime, is it worth it for what would likely be very few extra identifications?

 

[mudwhistle]

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

I see a bit of hyper-sensitivity here.

really? It seems to fit into a Miranda type situation. and so does setting up the DNA database system to search for partial matches.

the invasion of privacy, the scary slippery slope of connecting blood lines to crime, is it worth it for what would likely be very few extra identifications?

Personally......

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

I see a bit of hyper-sensitivity here.

really? It seems to fit into a Miranda type situation. and so does setting up the DNA database system to search for partial matches.

the invasion of privacy, the scary slippery slope of connecting blood lines to crime, is it worth it for what would likely be very few extra identifications?

Invasion of Privacy?

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son.

His son was in the criminal database, sound like possible it just longer for the father to get caught, they both seem to be criminals.

Everyone wants to use a stupid excuse for getting caught, if you cannot do the time do not do the crime.

Good citizens do not have to worry about being found out.

.

 

[IanC]

Obviously not the California Justice Dept. Or perhaps it was just the police dept that screwed up by admitting that they found that guy by comparing his DNA to his son's. Its one thing to know direct evidence by DNA, its another to fish a half eaten piece of pizza out of the garbage as the (sole?) link to the identity of a serial killer by way of familial connection through a database that was established for other purposes.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Obviously not the California Justice Dept. Or perhaps it was just the police dept that screwed up by admitting that they found that guy by comparing his DNA to his son's. Its one thing to know direct evidence by DNA, its another to fish a half eaten piece of pizza out of the garbage as the (sole?) link to the identity of a serial killer by way of familial connection through a database that was established for other purposes.

Well maybe, but if the guy had killed someone in your family, would you not want a little fishing done?

Just saying........

 

[manifold]

Queue HollowTree, DoubleDouche and UFagC Ollie to tell us that as long as we're not criminals we have nothing to worry about.

 

[cad]

So you aren't for using DNA testing? Haven't you seen CSI? Grissom taught me that DNA doesn't lie. Criminals do. Cops do. But DNA doesn't. DNA testing will be able to exhonerate as many or more blacks than it will convict.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you aren't for using DNA testing? Haven't you seen CSI? Grissom taught me that DNA doesn't lie. Criminals do. Cops do. But DNA doesn't. DNA testing will be able to exhonerate as many or more blacks than it will convict.

DNA never lies? I guess that depends on what you mean by lie.

DNA Test Sometimes Wrong

 

[IanC]

So you aren't for using DNA testing? Haven't you seen CSI? Grissom taught me that DNA doesn't lie. Criminals do. Cops do. But DNA doesn't. DNA testing will be able to exhonerate as many or more blacks than it will convict.

I think you mean excluded. There have only been a coupla hundred people exonerated by DNA testing out of the millions of people convicted.

Do any of you think police depts are commonly using racial profiling of unknown DNA samples to narrow down the suspect lists? There hasn't been much publicity about it but it is a cheap and effective test procedure. If they are not, should they?

As to the unauthorized use of national DNA databases for familial matches, I think there will be a big lawsuit, and it will be turned down. because of disparate impact.

 

[Borat]

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing

say it ain't so hahaha

but, but, but there is only one race ? human race ? hahaha

but, but, but race is not genetic ?

how can DNA testing identify a "social construct" ?