• A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It.
    139 replies, posted
The scary thing to me about using DNA for criminal investigations is it's only a matter of time till EVERYONE is required to have DNA on file with law enforcement. They'll say "Why not, unless you have something to hide?", 'they' being the Powers That Be and the loyal law and order types who believe everyone is guilty till proven innocent. This use of DNA sounds alright, the only problem I can see is if results keep coming back "It's a black guy...it's a black guy...it's a black guy...". Then it's going to appear to be just another law enforcement tool being used to paint minorities as the source of all crime. Even the case cited in the original post amounts to clearing whites for a crime a black committed- it sounds biased in other words, even if it isn't.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35551369]maybe you should read my posts and find out my issue with it is that the police in america are going to abuse this power just like they abuse pretty much any other power they're given. maybe if the world were an equal place where discrimination didn't exist this could be used for good but in the world as it exists today it's only going to end up being used poorly (IE racial profiling left and right) [/QUOTE] You're a bit mixed up, this really can't be used for discrimination. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] I can understand the worrying of discrimination and racial profiling in the police, as it's a very real fucking problem. But there's really no way this can factor in.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;35540818]Oh America - Only you could have a reaction to this based on race and ludditism in some unholy cocktail[/QUOTE] No, this wouldn't happen "Only in America". I'm sorry you're wrong there.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35559550]You're a bit mixed up, this really can't be used for discrimination. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] I can understand the worrying of discrimination and racial profiling in the police, as it's a very real fucking problem. But there's really no way this can factor in.[/QUOTE] uhhhh yeah it totally can. the statement "we know the perpetrator was black, and nothing else" really can't serve any ends other than racial profiling.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35560476]uhhhh yeah it totally can. the statement "we know the perpetrator was black, and nothing else" really can't serve any ends other than racial profiling.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand how the whole legal process works. DNA picks up lots of little things, now it picks up racial identity. Why isn't everything before this profiling but now this is?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35560978]You don't seem to understand how the whole legal process works. DNA picks up lots of little things, now it picks up racial identity. Why isn't everything before this profiling but now this is?[/QUOTE] because the American police system doesn't already systematically discriminate against brunettes or people with green eyes.
Give me a scenario in which this would lead to racial profiling.
How can it not? If the only information that can be gained from this specific sort of test is information on the perpetrators race then the only application that that information can be put towards is racial profiling. It's really simple.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35561528]How can it not? If the only information that can be gained from this specific sort of test is information on the perpetrators race then the only application that that information can be put towards is racial profiling. It's really simple.[/QUOTE] It's unbiased racial profiling, I don't see how that could be a bad thing. It's not racial profiling because some police officer thinks a member of this or that race is more likely to commit a crime, it's racial profiling because police KNOW the perpetrator is from this or that race. No bias, thus not bad.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35561528]How can it not? If the only information that can be gained from this specific sort of test is information on the perpetrators race then the only application that that information can be put towards is racial profiling. It's really simple.[/QUOTE] How is this any different to a witness coming forward and saying the criminal's race but not being able to remember anything else significant?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35561528]How can it not? If the only information that can be gained from this specific sort of test is information on the perpetrators race then the only application that that information can be put towards is racial profiling. It's really simple.[/QUOTE] I like how your response to "Think of [I]any[/I] possible scenario where this is could be used for ill intent, where the situation wouldn't already be worse without this" is to not give any examples, but rather to dodge the question and argue semantics. I mean, you think it would be [I]easy[/I] to think of an example if this actually were a bad invention. And surely there [I]must[/I] be examples, since you're so sure that it is, in fact, bad. Right...?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35561528]How can it not? If the only information that can be gained from this specific sort of test is information on the perpetrators race then the only application that that information can be put towards is racial profiling. It's really simple.[/QUOTE] That's not a scenario.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;35562590]How is this any different to a witness coming forward and saying the criminal's race but not being able to remember anything else significant?[/QUOTE] It's not any different. That causes problems too. [QUOTE=mobrockers2;35562480]It's unbiased racial profiling, I don't see how that could be a bad thing. It's not racial profiling because some police officer thinks a member of this or that race is more likely to commit a crime, it's racial profiling because police KNOW the perpetrator is from this or that race. No bias, thus not bad.[/QUOTE] yeah no, the end effect is still going to be the same: A number of innocent people are going to be singled out by the police and harassed for no reason other than the fact that they're of the same race as their perpetrator. The consequences of discriminatory police practices are a much bigger problem for our society than a few uncaught criminals. "Unbiased racial profiling" is not something I accept to exist. The problem with racial profiling isn't whether or not it's effective or can be justified, the problem with racial profiling is that it is system that ultimately oppresses a certain section of society, and again, systematic oppression is a way bigger problem than a marginally higher percentage of solved cases. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35563062]That's not a scenario.[/QUOTE] because I don't accept the premise that hypotheticals are useful in this argument.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35563699]because I don't accept the premise that hypotheticals are useful in this argument.[/QUOTE] Translation: "I can't think of any and I'm not going to admit it." How is this going to make anything worse? How is this any worse than witness testimony about the race of the criminal? It's simply informative, and much more accurate. It's literally the same thing we have now, but much more accurate. [I]How can accuracy be bad in a situation like this?[/I] "They'll single out random innocents!" They do that already. The only change now is that [I]there will be less of them, because the police will get the correct race of the perpetrator much more often.[/I] Without this, there are scenarios where witnesses pick the wrong race, so [I]any[/I] suspect the cops harass will be innocent. 0% of them will be the perp. With this, actually [I]less[/I] innocents will be picked out. Besides, if the cops [I]don't[/I] know the right race, and [I]are[/I] racist, they'll pick out people they're racist against. They have no excuse to do that with this. Their racism will only be secondary to the [I]fact[/I] that the perpetrator is a certain race.
The police should say "fuck the pol--"...wait no that's too silly..."fuck the cit--", wait no that just encourages the pigs to go out and be piggish...just use the technology and not give two shits what anyone thinks about it. One of the first things people notice about someone is race. Not because they're racist, but because it's fucking obvious (unless they've got a hood and you're not viewing them directly from the front). If the police know what race their guy is, no matter what race they are, then they can just cruise right by everyone else without even slowing down because they know "That's not our guy".
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35563699] because I don't accept the premise that hypotheticals are useful in this argument.[/QUOTE] You're trying to argue that this can be used, not at what level. I'm asking you to prove it, and the way you prove it is to give a scenario.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35563699]It's not any different. That causes problems too. yeah no, the end effect is still going to be the same: A number of innocent people are going to be singled out by the police and harassed for no reason other than the fact that they're of the same race as their perpetrator. The consequences of discriminatory police practices are a much bigger problem for our society than a few uncaught criminals. "Unbiased racial profiling" is not something I accept to exist. The problem with racial profiling isn't whether or not it's effective or can be justified, the problem with racial profiling is that it is system that ultimately oppresses a certain section of society, and again, systematic oppression is a way bigger problem than a marginally higher percentage of solved cases. because I don't accept the premise that hypotheticals are useful in this argument.[/QUOTE] Something unbiased by definition doesn't have to be justified, because it is not biased, it's impartial.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;35562590]How is this any different to a witness coming forward and saying the criminal's race but not being able to remember anything else significant?[/QUOTE] He thinks that everything that narrows down the suspect list is going to cause random arrests. So following that logic the police should disregard everything that can narrow the suspect list.
What a bunch of luddites. Look, people can already look up the stats and figure out for themselves whether there are more blacks than whites in prisons, or whether more black than white people die in gang violence, etc... And let's be honest, even if they didn't have reasons to discriminate, they'd find some or make some. I want you "OMG RACIAL PROFILING" tards to read this part especially: what if they were hunting for black people in this scenario, when it was actually a white person who committed the crime? The DNA test would reveal this and bam, all those black people are off the hook. This isn't racial profiling, this is more like Guess Who, and yes, "Is he Black?" is a legitimate question in that game, so fuck off.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;35540818]Oh America - Only you could have a reaction to this based on race and ludditism in some unholy cocktail[/QUOTE] ok the fact you actually called it ludditism is really peeving my pets over here
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.