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.