Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

RFD: DNA Database Debate

Peepette
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 10:17:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
PRO asserts that a DNA data base of all citizens would be beneficial to solving crime. Other methods are unreliable & prone to bias and discrimination. CON states the current DNA database are back logged, under funded & understaffed; including all citizens would be unwieldy. PRO defends her stance stating that DNA is taken at birth so that the DB is grown slowly, planning can be done and furthers this point that 35.2Xs more money is saved using a DB over its investment, which wins her this argument.

Human rights: PRO asserts that standards are being put in place to protect rights with DNA data bases ensuring privacy; this is a bit stronger argument than CONs objections based on probable abuses. But I feel there is a difference of intent with samples collected at birth for health reasons vs. future crime. The priority of societal safety being overruled under a "big brother" schema certainly gives pause for thought pertaining to civil liberties. PRO thinks that rights are not at issue if DNA is collected at birth, but is an issue if collected by force/warrants; the logic does not follow, but CON fails to pick up this point.

Under the premise that the whole population is in the database, CONs has concern with the hiding of a previous criminal record via denial of jury information, minorities singled out and possibility of false incrimination really does not hold up against the UK figures of success and that DNA test fallibility's are known, but still should remain as a tool in conjunction with collaborating evidence. CONs point would be pertinent if the database were made up of only felons.

CON"s pursues that the right against unreasonable search and seizure and presumption of innocence supersedes a populous database, this is CONs strongest point. All entries would be considered suspects without ever committing a crime. If one"s DNA did come up in a search, the presumption of innocence would shift to proving innocence and might negate further investigation into a crime. There"s reasonableness in logic that this could occur. PRO concedes to the ethical dilemma and proposes two separate databases, one for felons, other for remaining citizens; the felon DB searched 1st. PROs concession to this point and proposal for 2 databases unravels a few of her earlier statements that all people would be judged equally. Minorities which is weighted more heavily on the crime side of the data base could have potential for bias and by extension to their familial groups which was part of CONs objections.

Good debate. PRO made valid points on the validity and purposefulness of a populous database as being an effective tool against crime with relatively minor obstruction to personal autonomy, but CON also made a strong point regarding presumption of innocence and the shift of this premise. I"m torn between the invaluable tool for crime solving and prevention balanced against infringement of civil rights; as a result tie the debate.
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 10:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 10:17:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
PRO asserts that a DNA data base of all citizens would be beneficial to solving crime. Other methods are unreliable & prone to bias and discrimination. CON states the current DNA database are back logged, under funded & understaffed; including all citizens would be unwieldy. PRO defends her stance stating that DNA is taken at birth so that the DB is grown slowly, planning can be done and furthers this point that 35.2Xs more money is saved using a DB over its investment, which wins her this argument.

Human rights: PRO asserts that standards are being put in place to protect rights with DNA data bases ensuring privacy; this is a bit stronger argument than CONs objections based on probable abuses. But I feel there is a difference of intent with samples collected at birth for health reasons vs. future crime. The priority of societal safety being overruled under a "big brother" schema certainly gives pause for thought pertaining to civil liberties. PRO thinks that rights are not at issue if DNA is collected at birth, but is an issue if collected by force/warrants; the logic does not follow, but CON fails to pick up this point.

Under the premise that the whole population is in the database, CONs has concern with the hiding of a previous criminal record via denial of jury information, minorities singled out and possibility of false incrimination really does not hold up against the UK figures of success and that DNA test fallibility's are known, but still should remain as a tool in conjunction with collaborating evidence. CONs point would be pertinent if the database were made up of only felons.

CON"s pursues that the right against unreasonable search and seizure and presumption of innocence supersedes a populous database, this is CONs strongest point. All entries would be considered suspects without ever committing a crime. If one"s DNA did come up in a search, the presumption of innocence would shift to proving innocence and might negate further investigation into a crime. There"s reasonableness in logic that this could occur. PRO concedes to the ethical dilemma and proposes two separate databases, one for felons, other for remaining citizens; the felon DB searched 1st. PROs concession to this point and proposal for 2 databases unravels a few of her earlier statements that all people would be judged equally. Minorities which is weighted more heavily on the crime side of the data base could have potential for bias and by extension to their familial groups which was part of CONs objections.

Good debate. PRO made valid points on the validity and purposefulness of a populous database as being an effective tool against crime with relatively minor obstruction to personal autonomy, but CON also made a strong point regarding presumption of innocence and the shift of this premise. I"m torn between the invaluable tool for crime solving and prevention balanced against infringement of civil rights; as a result tie the debate.

Thanks for your feedback and great RFD!!
ThinkBig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notable Notes and Quotable Quotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I GOT SIG'D"
"WELL FVCK ME IN THE A$SHOLE AND CALL ME A CUCK I GOT SIG'D AGAIN"
-Kiri
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig.
-7th
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge or vote? Nominate me!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 11:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 10:17:06 PM, Peepette wrote:
PRO asserts that a DNA data base of all citizens would be beneficial to solving crime. Other methods are unreliable & prone to bias and discrimination. CON states the current DNA database are back logged, under funded & understaffed; including all citizens would be unwieldy. PRO defends her stance stating that DNA is taken at birth so that the DB is grown slowly, planning can be done and furthers this point that 35.2Xs more money is saved using a DB over its investment, which wins her this argument.

Human rights: PRO asserts that standards are being put in place to protect rights with DNA data bases ensuring privacy; this is a bit stronger argument than CONs objections based on probable abuses. But I feel there is a difference of intent with samples collected at birth for health reasons vs. future crime. The priority of societal safety being overruled under a "big brother" schema certainly gives pause for thought pertaining to civil liberties. PRO thinks that rights are not at issue if DNA is collected at birth, but is an issue if collected by force/warrants; the logic does not follow, but CON fails to pick up this point.

Under the premise that the whole population is in the database, CONs has concern with the hiding of a previous criminal record via denial of jury information, minorities singled out and possibility of false incrimination really does not hold up against the UK figures of success and that DNA test fallibility's are known, but still should remain as a tool in conjunction with collaborating evidence. CONs point would be pertinent if the database were made up of only felons.

CON"s pursues that the right against unreasonable search and seizure and presumption of innocence supersedes a populous database, this is CONs strongest point. All entries would be considered suspects without ever committing a crime. If one"s DNA did come up in a search, the presumption of innocence would shift to proving innocence and might negate further investigation into a crime. There"s reasonableness in logic that this could occur. PRO concedes to the ethical dilemma and proposes two separate databases, one for felons, other for remaining citizens; the felon DB searched 1st. PROs concession to this point and proposal for 2 databases unravels a few of her earlier statements that all people would be judged equally. Minorities which is weighted more heavily on the crime side of the data base could have potential for bias and by extension to their familial groups which was part of CONs objections.

Good debate. PRO made valid points on the validity and purposefulness of a populous database as being an effective tool against crime with relatively minor obstruction to personal autonomy, but CON also made a strong point regarding presumption of innocence and the shift of this premise. I"m torn between the invaluable tool for crime solving and prevention balanced against infringement of civil rights; as a result tie the debate.

I don't recommend this in the main forum
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka