The Instigator
dweyand07
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
GaryBacon
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Should every person proved their DNA, fingerprints, picture to the law when we turn 18?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,756 times Debate No: 3833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (13)

 

dweyand07

Pro

Use Logical and common sense only. Do not cited the website and use quotes and everything else. I want this debate to be about logical and common sense only!

Since the crime rate is still going up and more people are getting away with it.

I would have to say it would be the best for people safety and easy for the law enforcement to find the person who does the crime.

These would be a lot easier for the polices and FBI to find the criminal who did the crime.

Reason why I'm PRO for it? There is always many new criminal, it's not always the same ones.

1) Every person would have to go to the Police Station to provide picture, full name, Social Security Number, DNA, fingerprint when they turn 18.

2) It would save a lot of money for them when they already got the information and those ID on people right away.

3) Most polices and FBI can not find the person right away.

4) It would be faster for them to catch the person who did it before it does any more damage (rape, murder etc etc).
GaryBacon

Con

Although this system after being imposed may lead to faster captures of some criminals, the cons I believe outweigh the pros. The ramifications of such a system are detrimental to the remnants of freedom that this country still has. I will elaborate more on this later in the debate. For the time being, I will review your arguments.

You state that the crime rate is still going up and more people are getting away with it. But aren't many of the people that get away with it caught and released by an incompetent jury? Having DNA evidence does not stop someone from getting away with a crime. The famous O.J. trial is proof of that.

Reasons why you are PRO for it: You state that there are always new criminals, not always the same one. It is true that some crimes are committed by people without any previous arrest record. But as a person that actually works for criminal court, I can assure you that most crimes are committed by people with prior arrests.

In regards to your numbered reasons:

1. This is not a reason. Merely a reiteration of the debate topic.

2. I see no way in which this system would save money. In fact, it would likely cost money. The processing fees for DNA and fingerprints would now include the DNA and fingerprints of a much larger population. More DNA and more fingerprints equals more money. The fact that this data is collected prior to an arrest would not magically lower the processing fees.

3. I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from that state that most police and FBI agents do not find the criminal right away. I would like to see some evidence of this. I know first hand that the date of offense and the date of arrest are usually very close together.

4. I will concede that in some cases the proper law enforcement agency would be able to apprehend the suspect more quickly by knowing that person's identity. However, there is a cost.

The main reason why I am against this proposal is due an invasion of privacy. People that have done absolutely nothing wrong would be subjected to similar procedures used on criminals. Societies that are run in such a manner are simply fascist. The Patriot Act may have eliminated the fourth amendment, but that does not mean that the philosophy behind the fourth amendment is invalid. You should think a bit more about the consequences of your proposal.
Debate Round No. 1
dweyand07

Pro

1) I know it's not a reason.

2) The crime lab, would have to pay for new set of paper for every person they get the finger of.

Example:
The polices would have to get finger print/DNA from each person, and they would have to send it to the lab and they have to compare to the print from the crime scene to see which one is the match and which one is not. If has the record of everybody on it. They would not have to ask each person to provide DNA because it's only on the computer. All they would need is the DNA from the crime scene and compare it to everything online. No paper, nothing, all free because it's on the paper. Get DNA on paper from each person and compare it, it cost more because they have to buy new ones every time their out.

3) Right away does not means like within few hours. It would take days, weeks, months, years to find the right person if does not have that person record.

Example: If somebody whom is a new criminal killed your lover, and took off. The polices are trying to find out who did it. Next day or two days later (whatever days later, you pick) another crime happen, same way as you lover did. The polices would not be able to stop it on time due to no record because the person is new and fresh off the block.

4) Since when does it cost to look in the mugbook or online for the pictures? I meant, the pictures are already there. If I saw somebody, all I have to do is tell the polices what that person look like, they'll give me pictures of all the people who look as the same who I just described.

Quoted from you, "The main reason why I am against this proposal is due an invasion of privacy." How is your blood is your privacy when you leave them everywhere when you get cut, or donate blood at the hospital or red cross? Same as DNA, you leave them everywhere every less than a second, from your footprint, fingerprint, hair, whatever. It's not that private, it's everywhere just new, doesn't have ID on them from who it belongs to.

Another quotes from you, "Having DNA evidence does not stop someone from getting away with a crime. The famous O.J. trial is proof of that."

They said he killed his girlfriend/wife, has DNA on her and everything? Well, DUH, their dating with each other. Of course they will have DNA on each other. It's called "Common Sense."

Example: If you were living with your wife for long period of time. Do you think your DNA would NOT be on her same as another way around with her DNA are NOT being on you?

That would explain why O.J. Simpson has DNA on that girl who was murdered.
GaryBacon

Con

Your argument for saving money is incoherent. Processing data for everyone would be MORE expensive than processing data for only a small percentage of the population.

You state "The crime lab, would have to pay for new set of paper for every person they get the finger of" but this in no way, shape or form shows me any logic as to why it would be cheaper to process the DNA, fingerprints, and various other data for everyone. It would clearly be cheaper to only process for the few that we have reasons to process.

Your example shows only why it would be easier to compare DNA samples from a crime scene. I do grant you that it would eliminate the need to obtain DNA and fingerprints from possible suspects. However, your statement "No paper, nothing, all free because it's on the paper" makes no sense whatsoever. I never said that it would cost fees to compare. But in order to compare to data, that data that is being used as a reference point must first be processed. Whether or not you believe it, this costs money. And, for the record, comparing DNA on paper would not be efficient at all. It would be done by computer.

Furthermore, despite the fact that computers are increasingly fast nowadays, they are still not THAT fast. Trying to match a DNA sample from a list of actual suspects would be a lot quicker than trying to match a DNA sample from a list that constitutes the entire population. To try to do such a thing would be extremely time consuming, even in this day and age.

You have still given no evidence or numbers to back up your statement "Most polices and FBI can not find the person right away." I let you know that from my experience this is not the case. In most people that I see getting caught, they are caught right away (or at the very least, very soon). To this you respond "Right away does not means like within few hours. It would take days, weeks, months, years to find the right person if does not have that person record." This is a meaningless statement backed up by nothing. For the record, most means a minimum of 51%. Until you can provide me with some evidence of this, I contest this point.

You then try to give me an example to show that most police, or "polices" as you seem to say, cannot find the person right away. Your example is not only hypothetical, but also very vague and not at all consistent with the point you are trying to make.

Finally, when I stated "I will concede that in some cases the proper law enforcement agency would be able to apprehend the suspect more quickly by knowing that person's identity. However, there is a cost" it should've been clear from what followed that the cost was not financial. The cost is paid in liberties and freedoms.

Despite your claims, DNA, fingerprints and the like ARE private. I am well aware of the fact that we leave traces of our DNA and fingerprints everywhere. You state "It's not that private, it's everywhere just new, doesn't have ID on them from who it belongs to." But it is just that point that makes it private. The fact that there is no ID on who these prints or DNA samples found belong to make them private. Once the DNA is sequenced and labelled with a person's identity, then it is no longer private.

This brings about other questions. Who would have access to this genetic database? There are many companies that would love to see this data on any employee when it comes to insurance costs. Those with a predisposition to some genetic disorder may pay more costs for health care, which would've never happened before.

Your comments on the O.J. trial are not even worthy of a response. I will merely say that to focus on that would go off on a tangent and detract from this debate.

My main reasons against your policy are the same that they were initially. Whether or not you believe it to be so, it is an invasion of privacy when innocent people are forced to give up their fingerprints and DNA to have it processed by the government. You are getting a slightly higher amount of safety, but at a very high cost of liberty.
Debate Round No. 2
dweyand07

Pro

Stated by you, "And, for the record, comparing DNA on paper would not be efficient at all. It would be done by computer." Don't they usually post them on paper before putting them up for computer?

"Trying to match a DNA sample from a list of actual suspects would be a lot quicker than trying to match a DNA sample from a list that constitutes the entire population." Well of course, why would they look up for DNA from somebody in Ohio when the crime happen in Texas? Just look up local area.

"You have still given no evidence or numbers to back up your statement "Most polices and FBI can not find the person right away." I let you know that from my experience this is not the case. In most people that I see getting caught, they are caught right away (or at the very least, very soon)."

It's because I said in round one, no cited, all common sense and logical only. I'm not going to break the rules that I made already.

As I was saying about DNA is not private. When a child is born, the nurse or whoever there take your hand/foot prints right away to label the child without asking your parents.

There is a cost, freedom wasn't free. The law was made to give people freedom and make sure everybody is equal. Without law, there will be no freedom right?

Your questions,

1)Who would have access to this genetic database?
Answer, The hospital would have one to be able to tell who the dead body is without the ID on them. Also the crime lab should be access to it to label all the "Jane Doe."

The insurance company or any other company would not be allowed to get any information because they do not have permit from the person who provided DNA.

One question to you, your statement, "You are getting a slightly higher amount of safety, but at a very high cost of liberty."

I would rather have higher safety in life than crime rate.

Would you prefer to have safer lives or dangerous lives for your children or grandchildren? Think about it.

Since the crime rate is still going higher we would have to step up the law to lower the crime rate.
GaryBacon

Con

In your first statement, you claim that the genetic codes would first be placed on paper and subsequently on computer. I realize that this attempted to refute a point a made. The problem is that if this is indeed the case, then it can stand as a very strong point against your topic. For if all of the genetic data is first placed on paper, then this system is even less efficient than previously claimed.

I stated that trying to match DNA to actual suspects is a lot quicker than trying to match samples to the entire population.

To this you replied "Well of course, why would they look up for DNA from somebody in Ohio when the crime happen in Texas? Just look up local area."

There are two problems with this:

The first is that even this method would be inefficient. The entire population for a single area can be great. This is especially true when it comes to larger cities.

The second and more relevant flaw is that people move! The DNA, fingerprints, and everything else will be taken from an individual at age 18. Although your rules forbid me from citing any sources, you should know that most people who commit violent crimes (i.e. ones in which a DNA sample is wanted) do not do so at such an early age. There is nothing from stopping an individual to move to another area. Living in NYC, I can tell you that many people here are not native to the city.

This leads to a dilemma for your method. You would either have to still check the entire population, or find a way to check the DNA of everyone in the area. Not only would this be a huge hassle to look up DNA records taken in other states, but it would also constitute a further tightening of your proposed fascist grip. Keeping such close track of everyone is horrible for liberty, and it goes against many of the principles on which this country was founded.

Now I realize that your rules forbid you from citing any references. But that should not imply that you are given carte blanche to simply make any claims you wish, regardless of truth. So when you say "Most polices and FBI can not find the person right away" I still contest this point as most implies a minimum of 51% of the time. Although the rules forbid citing references, the readers and voters are not forbidden from looking into matters for themselves to discover false claims.

In response to DNA being private, you use an example that has nothing to do with DNA.

When I made claims about insurance companies getting this data, you said they would not because they wouldn't have permission. Unfortunately, this world is not a kind one and people don't always play by the rules. Larger corporations have been known to pay off people in order to obtain criminal history reports of employees. I see no reason why insurance companies wouldn't pull the same under the table deals in order to prevent insuring someone with a genetic disorder.

When I said that your higher rate of safety is at the cost of liberty, you say "I would rather have higher safety in life than crime rate." This is disheartening and it is a point on which we differ. You are willing to give up any freedoms necessary in order to obtain some safety. This is something I find absolutely disgusting, and it is one of the current problems with this country today. I will not try to change your mind, but you must realize that as a necessary consequence you are choosing fascism over democracy.

You ask "Would you prefer to have safer lives or dangerous lives for your children or grandchildren? Think about it." But this disguises the problem. If the question is a simple one of safety or danger, with no consequences for either choice, then most people would choose safety. This, however, is not the case. The trade off is that with your proposed method to make things safer, freedoms are taken away. So I ask you, would you prefer your children or grandchildren to live in a free country or to live under a fascist regime?

You then end with the statement "Since the crime rate is still going higher we would have to step up the law to lower the crime rate." Once again, I feel that the omission of references does not give you a right to lie. The voters can once again check out the crime trends if they wish to see whether or not the overall crime rate is still going higher.

Finally, I notice that you completely avoided your original claim that this method would save money. I'm just going to assume that you realized the logical flaw of this statement after the first two rounds and chose to jump ship.

In the end, most people probably do want to live in a safer society with less crime. The question we must ask ourselves is "At what cost?" How many freedoms and liberties are you willing to sacrifice in order to obtain this higher level of safety? My opponent seems willing to trade it all. But I find this too extreme. Liberties and freedoms should be valued and cherished. They should not be used as bargaining chips to gain more safety. We have already started along this erroneous path. Let us go no further.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Use Logical and common sense only"

I stopped reading there.
Posted by Lithobolos 8 years ago
Lithobolos
I wonder why natural rights and privacy rights never came up.
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
there is no ivasion of privacy if you never do any thing wrong and you still have right to a fair trial. money wise finger prints is digital and dna keeps lowering sonn to be $10
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Off_the_Wall.Paul 5 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ninja34 7 years ago
ninja34
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dweyand07 7 years ago
dweyand07
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mattowander 8 years ago
Mattowander
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Shmishmortion 8 years ago
Shmishmortion
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chaucer 8 years ago
Chaucer
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by artist_elitist 8 years ago
artist_elitist
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
dweyand07GaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03