By a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police can forcibly take the DNA of suspects arrested for serious crimes and add it to a national DNA database. This supposedly does not violate the Fourth Amendment restriction on unreasonable searches because DNA swabbing of inside the cheek is “not very intrusive.” Yet if you stuck your finger into a stranger’s mouth, you would be arrested…and presumably swabbed.
Not Very Intrusive (If You’re a Cop)
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
22 Comments. Leave new
I look forward to the quick resolution of many crimes following this thanks to the Prosecutor’s Fallacy.
Imagine what will happen when “close matches” start popping up. John gets swabbed, is a close match for a rape. Perhaps it was one of John’s brothers? Let’s get them swabbed too. If they refuse, we simply arrest them for attempting assault “I asked if we could come in and he took a swing at me. My partner here can confirm it. We both signed the report, and it’s not like a cop would ever lie.”
On the plus side, it could eliminate smoking. “Ma’am? Come here ma’am. I’m placing you under arrest. You littered when you threw that butt on the sidewalk. We’ll be testing it for DNA and comparing it to the national database. Thanks to the Prosecutor’s Fallacy, we’ll almost certainly be able to link you to some crime, and we’ll sweat you until you plea bargain it out. We’ll close a case, you’ll take the rap, ruining the rest of your life. It’s a win-win situation.”
This was dragged out at the OJ Simpson trial. The DNA from crime scenes is fragmentary. It can conclusively prove that someone is NOT guilty, but is much less conclusive that someone IS guilty.
Imagine a book has been blown up and one only finds a few hundred fragments. ‘The’, ‘A’, ‘miner’, ‘effer’, ‘call’, ‘me’. The prosecution wants to prove that it knows the book that was blown up. If a fragment is NOT in the book, then the book could not have been responsible for the fragments (prosecutor’s conclusion: multiple books were blown up, and this book was one of them even though some of the fragments don’t match). Even if all the fragments were in the book, they are probably found in many other books. Only if one had the entire text (i.e., a complete DNA sample) could one be certain which book was blown up.
At the OJ Simpson trial, the DNA expert said the DNA found at the crime scene could not have been anyone’s except OJ’s. Then he said there was a one in one million chance it was someone else’s. Then it was a 1% chance that it could have been someone else’s, and 1% is good enough for statistical work. The jury at the criminal trial didn’t buy this as evidence of OJ’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the jury at the civil tried did buy it).
However, it is almost certain that SOME prosecutors will do as Alex suggested: take the fragment and look for the best match to the fragment of DNA among all those whose samples they have. There will always be at least one best match (maybe not a very good one) but a match that is better than every other individual whose DNA is in the database. This, as the link by Alex points out, has no statistical value as proof of the guilt of the person whose DNA was the closest match in the database. But if the person found as the closest match was in a database of millions, juries will probably accept this as irrefutable ‘proof.’
***
And it’s not clear why we need this. The US public has agreed that, to fight terror, we must go back to the old tried and true techniques for keeping society safe, and use them proactively to ensure that we never find any dead bishops on the landing.
It would seem that the expansion of hypocrisy and the police state increases weekly and is accelerating at that.
Yes – Avast ye swabs, let you be invited to walk the water-plank!
Ted (or anybody), I’ve had to be swabbed to be hired for jobs. Got a position on that?
@Jack: Of course I have a position on that. Employers that require urine tests or lie detector tests or DNA samples or credit checks are behaving in an unethical and fascist manner and should cease and desist immediately. I would make a few exceptions for people who are seeking to get highly sensitive jobs like driving a train or police officer or firefighter, but 99% of jobs don’t really require you to be drug-free or have a good credit in order to perform them.
Ted,
The point of the urine test, the swab test, the lie detector test is straightforward. It’s the same point of the TSA molestation stations at the airport. In the animal kingdom, it’s called backing down to the alpha male or female.
The question employers want answered most badly is this: Will you put the collar on and let us lock it in place? Will you let us treat you like shit? Because someone who starts off being willing to be treated like shit will almost never give the master, I mean employer, any trouble down the line.
Yes, Alex, I totally agree. I have always said that employers are more interested in control over their employees then they are in getting a solid day’s hard work out of them. That’s why they make you clock in. That’s why they insist that you attend meetings. That’s why they are paranoid about telecommuting. They want to make sure that you are kowtowing to them. It’s all about control.
Alex, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn’t considered the latent functions honestly.
Ted, tongue in cheek (‘Got a position on that?’). Credit checks are definitely wrong. I even take issue with background checks. We pretend to be a society that’s reform-minded and say a criminal ‘has served his time’ and still brand him for years to life! Especially in a Christian society that should believe in forgiveness and redemption. What do you think should be done though when someone is under the influence while on the job and it DOES affect job performance?
Employers in my experience value, maybe more than anything, someone who ‘can take direction well.’ I used to think employers should be able to be confident in that their new hireling was not a drug user, but then again I didn’t think most recreational drugs should be illegal. Supporters justify it in a few ways I know of. You don’t have to fly/take that job. This is the old ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide…’ Just like with the drunk driving checkpoints, they say it’s A-OK and constitutional because EVERYONE has to do it. If I’m not supposed to have to prove my innocence to the law, why must I to a prospective employer? I don’t even like weed, but they’re accusing me of using drugs. In regard to the fragmentary DNA, i’s a big problem that scientists are not consulted much for rulings and laws in this country. (I am reminded of my own recurring rhetorical question: “Is there anything that’s not screwed up?”) Here’s some incremental change for us. We are getting used to ‘backing down’ and being conditioned to accept all this fascism for what’s normal, proper, and reasonable…
Alex, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn’t considered the latent functions honestly.
Ted, tongue in cheek (‘Got a position on that?’). Credit checks are definitely wrong. I even take issue with background checks. We pretend to be a society that’s reform-minded and say a criminal ‘has served his time’ and still brand him for years to life! Especially in a Christian society that should believe in forgiveness and redemption. What do you think should be done though when someone is under the influence while on the job and it DOES affect job performance?
Employers in my experience value, maybe more than anything, someone who ‘can take direction well.’ I used to think employers should be able to be confident in that their new hireling was not a drug user, but then again I didn’t think most recreational drugs should be illegal. Supporters justify it in a few ways I know of. You don’t have to fly/take that job. This is the old ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide…’ Just like with the drunk driving checkpoints, they say it’s A-OK and constitutional because EVERYONE has to do it. If I’m not supposed to have to prove my innocence to the law, why must I to a prospective employer? I don’t even like weed, but they’re accusing me of using drugs. In regard to the fragmentary DNA, it’s a big problem that scientists are not consulted much for rulings and laws in this country. (I am reminded of my own recurring rhetorical question: “Is there anything that’s not screwed up?”) Here’s some incremental change for us. We are getting used to ‘backing down’ and being conditioned to accept all this fascism for what’s normal, proper, and reasonable…
I agree, Jack. There should not be background checks at all. Not for jobs. I don’t care if you are a felon. If you have served your debt to society, that’s where it ends, the day that you walk out of the prison gate. You should be free in every way, and that includes free to find the best possible job that you can.
Oh, sorry for double post. lol And employers checking social websites of employees or applicants is fucked up too.
I had a conversation with one of those people who say none of this intrusion should matter if you have nothing to hide. So I asked him when was the last time he masturbated. The idiot started out by telling me that his doctor said he should do it three times per week in the interest of prostate care.
I told the idiot that the correct answer is, repeat after me, “None of your business, asshole”
Another time, with another of the same type of person, I asked to see what was in his wallet. I told him not to worry because I once held a top secret security clearance, and the worst that would happen would be a laugh at his expense.
At least he backed off his claim of having nothing to hide and refused.
Jack,
It gets even better. Try this one on for size.
Let’s say 2% of the public are drug fiends. And let’s say a test is 99% accurate. And now, let’s say that 100,000 people get tested (more than that do, but let’s just keep the numbers easier).
So, 2,000 addicts, 98,000 normals. A test with a 1% failure rate. Let’s do the math.
The total number of test-result positives (false and true) that will turn up is (.99*2,000) + (.01*98,000): 1,980 + 980. That’s right. A third of the “positives” are wrong.
If it were 8% of the public that were drug fields? The false positive rate becomes a “mere” 10% (920 out of 8,840).
If the test were “only” 98% accurate, the error increases to 20%. That’s right. 1,840 (.02*92,000) false positives and 7,840 (.98*8,000) true positives.
The estimates on some drug tests are that, when you factor in lab error, the false positive rate can be as high as 15%. At that point, you’re getting 13,800 false positives (.15*92,000) and only 6,800 true positives (.85*8,000). Out of every three people being labeled addict, two are not.
(Here’s a link that goes into more detail.)
Ted, just make everybody a cop – sexual assault eliminated in one fell swoop !…
Henri
Alex,
I have to love a great real world math application. 🙂 Thanks for the link.
Ted,
When I was 18 and 19 I remember my employers caring much more that I frequently clocked in a few minutes late or was on break two minutes too long than that my coworkers did less work than me. I guess it was harder to quantify, but I sure noticed that I did more physical labor than either of them even though I was a smaller guy. I knew my supervisors couldn’t REALLY have efficiency in mind.
Another random thing humanity has screwed up: I just learned about a huge spike in jellyfish blooms in the last decade…turns out polluted ocean dead zones are great jellyfish nurseries. :/
Upheaval can’t come soon enough…but seems so far off. Maybe an opportunity has to be created to create THAT opportunity. At some point we might find ourselves realizing our window has passed and we’re even more powerless to stop the complete fascist takeover…this is all probably covered in a Rall book I haven’t gotten to yet. 😀
Ted (or anybody) – If someone who looks like the person in Ted’s cartoon walks up behind me, and shoves his finger in my mouth, I want to be able to bite it off, have him arrested, and not only be given a mouth swab, but a rabies test, because the dude in his cartoon looks to be extremely whatever…. “no backround checks whatever”, Ted, are you nuts? Do you really want o be unaware that the guy you may hire to pee on burgers, may have actually spent time shitting on them?
If this was some outback part of Scandinavia , I might be inclined to agree, but have you ever lived in Compton, Calif. or downtown Chicago. We Americans are off the map in sheer craziness in some areas, but yes, not everywhere, just most metropolitan centers.
Hi Ted, I jest watched a special commentary on Jellyfish blooms, and somehow I managed to relate this to how my employers viewed being late, work production, or whatever… The real, honest, simple fact is that if I hire your to do a job, and you do it well, i will recognize this and reward you. I will not reward you based on minutes late or early, or if you laugh at my jokes, or whatever. I am greedy, and I only care about how much money i make ( this may have not been so true in the past, huh?) Ever wonder why my posts are so short? Tell me.
Polluted dead oceasn zones -? Yeah – this shit happens everytime the earth undergoes a few degrees of ocean temperature changes – which it has, historically, done a lot.
Yes, the earth is in constant flux. Jobs are constantly being destroyed. The problem is not change or destruction, the problem is the speed at which these changes and destructions occur.
And they are speeding along like never before.
rikster,
You wouldn’t be making fun of me, would you? Is it a rule we have to stay completely on topic here?
Pretty much, yes. And be polite.
LOL! Yikes! How often do people do either of those?