Well, if there can be as many as 50,000 in Virginia alone, just think: There can be well over 2,000,000 in all the states combined. Which means there's a very good chance our sick puppy is not in the system.

>I think the Virginia politicians are going to be burning the
>midnight oil for awhile as they manufacture a great deal of
>whitewash.

Instead of trying to whitewash the situation, they should be burning the midnight oil working on laws to prevent such things as this from happening in the future. It's that old word, "responsibility". Something that is totally lacking in today's society.

Qualifying federal offenses now include any felony, crimes of sexual abuse as set out in 18 U.S.C. § 4221 et seq., any crime of violence, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16, as well as any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses. Qualifying military offenses formerly limited to felony or sex offenses, now include any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more than one year may be imposed.

Prior to the signing of this Act, 31 states included ALL convicted felons in their eligibility requirements.

I'm really not "saying" anything. I was quoting the Act signed into law in 2004. I don't really know for sure what you were saying. The two posts do seem contradictory, though. You posted: The majority of states do not require that. It is ONLY (by law) taken for those who have been found g uilty of a sex crime and other crimes that involved force and fear. The majority of felonies committed and convicted DO NOT fall under those categories.

It looks to me like the Act includes "all convicted felons", while your post stated "only those who have been found guilty of a sex crime and other crimes that involved force and fear".

Bush's signing of the Act is fairly recent (only 2 years ago), so maybe what you posted has changed. I don't know. I'm not in the "felon" biz.

But, prior to the signing of the Act, 31 states included all convicted felons. It sounds to me like the Act made it all 50 states.

Some of the laws enacted required the collection retroactively of felons who were confined at the time. I believe it is part of the processing procedures at the prisons.

Some states, as the laws changed, were required to collect DNA from felons on probation or parole - a requirement before discharge from supervision would be granted.

The following is an example (Florida) of the wording

Florida, SB 1648b (2003)
20 (3) Upon a conviction of any person for any offense
21 under paragraph (1)(a) which results in the commitment of the
22 offender to a county jail, correctional facility, or juvenile
23 facility, the entity responsible for the facility shall assure
24 that the blood specimens or other biological specimens
25 required by this section and approved by the Department of Law
26 Enforcement are promptly secured and transmitted to the
27 Department of Law Enforcement. Personnel at the jail,
28 correctional facility, or juvenile facility shall collect the
29 specimens as part of the regular processing of offenders
30 committed to the jail or facility

Margoo, in your post above, here's the portion that is missing:

(3) Upon a conviction of any person for any offense
under paragraph (1)(a)

What are the offenses under paragraph (1) (a)? There is a list of offenses that qualify for DNA blood draws. Not all felonies do. That is my point.

What about all the people in the Ramsey case (as well as many other cases) who were subject to DNA testing just because they "knew" the victim or were present at a party at the victim's home? They might have thought it was unnecessary and they might have objected, knowing they were innocent. But it was something they had to do.

I imagine that some day each and every one of us will have to have our DNA on record. And I think that would be good. I wouldn't object to it.

Edited to add: I believe the only DNA that was taken in the Ramsey case with a court order was John Karr's. The rest were voluntary for non-testimonial purposes.

This to me is without merit. Are these results not entered in a data retrieval system by law, or is it through the choice of the agency doing the tests?

I think the more test results entered into CODIS, the more complete any results from CODIS checking will be. If all DNA test results are not entered, then the entire purpose of CODIS will have been defeated.

That is why eventually everybody in the country will be required to have his/her DNA tested and entered into CODIS.

Do the laws vary, state by state?

Edited to add: Perhaps federal laws should be adopted. That way, at least they would be uniform.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." ~ Benjamin Franklin

I too feel as strongly about the subject so will refrain from further comment.

In many cases, it becomes a matter of giving up a "little" liberty to gain a "whole lot" of security. Wouldn't it be worth it to possibly save someone's life?
>
>"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve
>nor will he ever receive either." ~ Benjamin Franklin

In today's society, I seriously doubt that Benjamin Franklin would have ever uttered those words. The ACLU provides an excellent example of using "freedoms" for devious objectives. And for those who might be unfamiliar with what the ACLU advocates, they will have to do some research because I won't go into that now.

Another good example is the current policy of searching airline passengers. Many people protest these searches because they claim they infringe on their "freedoms". But what is more important, passengers' "freedom" or the safety of all those on board as well as any object of possible terrorists on board?

Any person who has concern and compassion for his fellow man will IMO gladly surrender a so-called freedom if it will mean security and safety for his fellow man. A life is more important that a perceived freedom.

I don't mean to sound preachy, but this is how I feel and believe.

Life consists of those freedoms.

Part of life consists of those freedoms. Life itself involves much more.

I do see the difference. Fingerprints don't give up personal genetic information regarding parentage or medical issues. While I can understand that no one can, with 100% certainty, guarantee privacy and against misuse of dna information, the question, for me, boils down to the value of advantages over any disadvantages. If it saves my child or your brother or someone else's mother from being the next victim of a serial rapist or murderer, I just don't see much of anything that supercedes that "value".

Perhaps taking all felons' DNA might not SAVE lives, but it might bring killers to justice. John Ramsey said that he was told that if all felons' DNA were on file, 1,000 murders would be solved immediately.

In today's forensics labs, DNA is the gold standard and therefore is not considered to be invalid "in many cases". There may be an exception found in a very rare instance, but it would be so rare that it would in no way affect statistical results.

Although actual fingerprints might not be manipulated, they CAN and ARE very often circumvented by the simple act of donning a pair of gloves.

Since the advent of DNA, "The Innocense Project" has freed many indivuals who have been falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit. How many of those individuals might have innocently left fingerprints at the crime scene? Or, were convicted by a jury on the weight of fingerprint evidence?

So, it's fairly obvious that any crime scene technology can be flawed--none is perfect--DNA technology is by far the best technology available in today's crime fighting arsenal.