DNA data base

[AJBert]

I brought this up in another thread but thought I'd bring it here. Sometime back in the '90s the DoD decided to put together a data base of every active duty service member, and I'll also assume reservist, to be able to identify bodies and body parts due to the nature of what we have faced overseas.

We were told, and to my knowledge this still holds, that our DNA would ONLY be used to identify us providing the worst would happen and we could not be identified by any other means. I believe this to be true up to this point as I haven't heard of any case(s) to the contrary.

I do remember watching some show on TV (I know...) like 20/20 or some such about a female Marine that had been brutally raped on base and murdered. The local LEO's wanted access to the data base to help find the rapist/killer. As much as I felt for the family, I am glad the DoD did not grant them access.

This is not what the data base was put together for. Now...

for those of you that have your DNA in this data base, how comfortable do you feel knowing the US Gov't has it? I don't plan on anyone ever needing my DNA to help solve a case, but I don't have a warm fuzzy knowing this gov't has it.

I wonder if there is a way I can petition the gov't to return or destroy what they have on me? I retired a few years back and have now passed the 30 year mark in which they could have called me back.

No tinfoil hat just yet...

[RRP]

I wonder if there is a way I can petition the gov't to return or destroy what they have on me?

Assuming the gov't honored your request, or said they did, would you feel any better? Or would you always wonder if they really did destroy the data?

[AJBert]

Good point! Guess I'm screwed either way.

[Scoundrel]

I have been told by an attorney that records clerks often disobey court orders to destroy records, and refuse to destroy them.

That baffles me. A records clerk disobeys a court order, and is allowed to get away with that?!

And that is in civilian courts. Now, your situation regards the military. Not a chance of it actually being destroyed.

[Longitude Zero]

Now, your situation regards the military. Not a chance of it actually being destroyed.

Precisely. It is my understanding that not even SCOTUS hs the authority to order the military to destroy any records.

[Gringo Pistolero]

I was in during that initial DNA database start-up too, and have been retired about 14 years now.

I've always assumed that like most of my other records, the Army has managed to lose my DNA by now.

[Scoundrel]

I was in during that initial DNA database start-up too, and have been retired about 14 years now.

I've always assumed that like most of my other records, the Army has managed to lose my DNA by now.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- Robert J. Hanlon

[muggsy]

When I served DNA hadn't been invented yet, so I guess I'm safe.

[OldLincoln]

Same for me as Muggsy, but I'm confused as to why it is an issue. They have finger prints, photos, scar descriptions, blood type, etc., already. I don't like "them" to intrude but I fail to see what harm they could impose via a DNA match up. It either matches or not. I can't tell you how often I wish they had everybody's DNA and could solve a bunch of crimes.

If a match for your DNA showed up at a crime scene and you didn't do it I'll bet you wish it also. With enough DNA in a database they will discover more matches than they thought possible. If your sample data is limited the chance of a match is likewise limited so the "expert" confidently states the odds are 1 in 10 billion. Of course they don't have 10 billion DNA samples so they are really extrapolating what few they have way out there. If I were a defense attorney I'd ask that expert how many samples they actually tested my clients DNA against.

I'm a huge fan of the outfit that gets innocent people freed after many years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. DNA plays a major part in those, so extrapolating it forward, our legal system might be more accurate if they could match to right people. It makes me ill to think of all those who cannot get reviews even when the DNA evidence is available. Why? To borrow and common liberal phrase, "if only one life could be saved" by testing DNA of convicted criminals to "solved" crimes would it be worth it?

Used to be that a clear distinction was made between the District Attorney and staff, and defense attorneys. That is the DA was responsible for finding truth and justice while the defense was charged with defending their client regardless of innocence. Now the DA does every dirty trick they can to get a conviction and run for reelection on the basis of their conviction rate. That rate used to represent investigation of crimes and prosecution of those who the discovered were truly guilty. Now if they bring charges they commit themselves to getting conviction above all else including justice. If they have more than one suspect, they go for the one they can convict easier.

Oh there I go again.... sorry.

[wyntrout]

"They" also need a database to use when they develop the genetic markers needed to categorize people as risks to society and make decisions on things like medical treatment... or fitness for gun ownership!

Wynn