Why is DNA testing not yet mandatory law?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LIVEFRMNYC, Aug 16, 2013.

  1. macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    Every week I hear some case of someone who's been wrongly convicted and did a good amount of time, only to have DNA prove the conviction wrong. A DNA test has been refused by the courts multiple times until they finally approve it, the convicted would have to wait years through this process. Some don't never get an approval.

    IMO .... I think Judges and the courts should be left out of the decision to allow or disallow any DNA test, and it should rather just be mandatory.

    Then you have DNA to prove whether someone is actually the father. This should be mandatory for two reasons. First, for clarification from the very beginning of who is and/or who is not the father. Secondly, so it doesn't cause any backlash from the mother when a man requests a test.

    In the short and/or long run, I see this saving tax dollars too (although that's just an assumption).
  2. macrumors 68000

    Aug 11, 2008
    Parental law is ****ed up beyond belief but it isn't going to change because such changes are advertised by the progressive as a war on woman.

    Hell, there was a case in CA where a guy was raising a kid, found out his wife cheated, got a paternity test, and the court ruled he still had to pay for the child.
  3. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    Usually I'm for women on just about everything. But if women in general disagrees with having mandatory DNA, I'm against them.

    Yea, that's exactly why paternity testing should be done asap. Some women need to check their pride at the door and realize this is not just about them.
  4. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 5, 2012
    The Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that DNA testing is permissible. DNA testing is mostly controlled at the state level. If the State's constitution does not prohibit it DNA samples maybe obtained. The judge follows the law of the state. He has no discretionary authority other than that permitted by law. Of course at the federal level the Supreme Court court ruling governs.

    CORRECTION: I missed read your post. You are talking about paternity cases. I know and understand criminal but not paternity.
  5. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    My original post was talking about both.

    One story I've heard that had to do with a criminal cases. The Judge kept denying the DNA request based on technicality. No actual basis of the technicality was never explained.

    Here is one similar case. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52759585#52759585 A shame the clerk who helped him was fired.
  6. macrumors G5


    Aug 1, 2004
    St. Louis, MO
    So are you suggesting that every baby born should be subject to a DNA test? Who's going to pay for it? The times when a DNA test is required for custody battles is the exception, not the norm.
  7. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 2, 2007
    There is a good reason that DNA testing is not mandatory:

    Making it mandatory would be a violation of the 5th Amendment, as in

    "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

  8. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    Our tax dollars should pay. Just because it's the exception compared to the percentage of those that don't request doesn't mean a large number would not benefit.

    We have hundreds of billions to war. I don't see any reason why tax dollars can't be put towards something like this.

    I wasn't even looking at it like that. I was pointing out mandatory to prove innocence. Courts shouldn't be allowed to deny a defendant or convicted at request. In criminal cases I'm not talking about automatic testing.
  9. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 2, 2007
    Maybe because the governments doesn't really have any spare "tax dollars" and even if it did, like all stolen property, they should be returned to their rightful owners.

    I see your point. Perhaps the way to go is to limit the government's power to disallow DNA evidence should the defendant choose to submit it, rather than making the submission of DNA evidence a mandatory rule.

    It's always better to create solutions to problems that expand our freedom rather than ones which introduce a new rule or law that is mandatory.

  10. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    No, it's mainly cause of poor budgeting. I never buy the "we don't have enough dollars" line, when so much of it is misappropriated.

    Well yea, that was my whole idea to begin with. I think me using the word "mandatory" had you believing I meant it should be included into every single case regardless of the situation or even when not requested.

    But for the parental DNA issue ..... I think every man should be required to take a DNA test before signing a birth certificate and/or claiming parental rights at birth. Should be protocol IMO.
  11. macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    Potentially it could save a lot of money, save a lot of suffering, and help make more accurate decisions...it would benefit society at the micro and macro level. But as to why...it's hard to say. We have not even been able to vaccinate enough people because people often refuse vaccines for cultural reasons or reasons relating to junk science...forcing these people to be vaccinated would save money, lives, suffering, and benefit the greater good...but you then have the issue of informed consent, individual v. collective rights, and what action or actions will most benefit society at the "common good" sense. So it can be tricky because valid arguments can be made from more than one perspective.
  12. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    Those are good points.

    Most religious objections are because of medicines, needles, blood extract or transferring. A DNA test is nothing more than just a quick swab of the mouth(basically spit). No medicine, poking, or blood involved. Can't really see any objections besides made up ones.

    If some feel government should force women to go through an entire pregnancy, then I don't see how religion can't take a backseat when it comes to mandatory DNA testing.
  13. macrumors 65816


    Let me tell you the problem with DNA testing.
    1) It's expensive.

    2) It's slow - I laugh every time I see a TV show where someone runs DNA in 20 minutes - or even 20 hours. It is really expensive to set up a certified lab and the few labs that do exist are swamped. If you are going to do it right, maintain the chain of evidence, and be sure the results will hold up in court, it takes time.

    3) In many cases, there just isn't any DNA to compare against. Sometimes there is no suspect, sometimes there is no evidence.

    4) It is not perfect - I dealt with a case last week where the PCR was messed up on a virus index. They had to send the results out to a different lab to double check it. Turned out it was a false positive. Would have sucked to have taken regulatory action on that one only to have to reverse it.

    5) There is not just one DNA test out there. The testing that is run depends on the quantity and quality of the samples and the desired result. It takes a professional to know not only how to isolate the DNA, but what to do with it once you have it.
  14. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    Well in criminal cases, there are many differ situations, from exposed, mixed or very little DNA to work with. I have already stated that it should be available at request of a defendant or convicted without possibility of denial. We are already paying regardless, anyone accused or convicted should have a right to DNA evidence.

    In parental situations, it's pretty quick and straight to the point.
  15. NewishMacGuy, Aug 17, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013

    macrumors 6502a


    Aug 2, 2007
    The government actually doesn't have enough dollars. That's just the math of it, and it's why it ends up borrowing between more than a trillion of them every year (at recent rates). Remember that governments don't actually produce any goods for exchange in a free market (you are forced to purchase them) yet government spending accounts for nearly half of GDP. That's a giant inefficiency machine which makes us all much poorer.

    Now you might say that that's really a matter of prioritization, but the government overspends to such a great extent that drastic cuts are needed everywhere.

    And please recognize that our annual defense/war spending:

    1. ...is about .5% (that's one half of one percent) of the unfunded liabilities from Medicare, Social Security, and Bush's gigantic drug company subsidy (aka Medicare Part D).

    2. ...is largely responsible for ensuring that the US$ became and remains the world's reserve currency. Now I don't think that's been good for us, but if you support having a large government that can spend money on things like all of our social programs, or new ones that pay for mandatory DNA testing, then you absolutely need the US$ to be the world's reserve currency, because if it were not we would never be able to borrow the amounts needed to keep this giant Ponzi-scheme going.

    Again, why force men to do that? Let them decide for themselves whether or not they want to. There's really no need to remove another aspect of their personal choice.

  16. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009
    I doubt most men would even care. It's mostly the women who will have a problem with it.
  17. macrumors demi-god


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA

    I'm not clear on why men wouldn't object, and women would object. Could you expand on the reasoning?
  18. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009

    Cause there is plenty of women with something to hide, like cheating. Then you have plenty who knowingly commit parental fraud. And lastly, many women get offended at the need for a man to take a DNA test, makes them feel as if the man doesn't trust them. Many men who had doubts in their minds didn't take the test due to the women acting offended, only to find out years later it's not his child.
  19. macrumors 68000

    Aug 11, 2008

    Que the 'war on woman' narrative for anyone who suggests paternity laws.
  20. thread starter macrumors 601

    Oct 27, 2009

    And that's exactly what mandatory DNA would do for everyone regarding paternal tests.
  21. macrumors 68000

    Aug 11, 2008
    Yeah, but like I said its not going to happen because the progressives will cue the 'war on woman' narrative as they don't want woman exposed as sluts.
  22. Moderator emeritus

    Jul 4, 2004

    Wow. Such hate. What a winner.
  23. Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    Kite flying
    Gosh. What a horrible sentence, in conception, execution, casually and contemptuously expressed misogyny, tasteless tone, and yes, the mode of expression is horrible, too.....
  24. macrumors 6502

    Jul 9, 2008
    My granny always used to say that some things are best left unsaid. Why ask a question if no one actually benefits from the answer? (Unless being a dad is simply a question of genetics.)
  25. macrumors 68000

    Aug 11, 2008
    So someone who gets pregnant while in a relationship by cheating on their partner and then tries to pass off the baby as their partners isn't a slut?

    Throw on the fact that the woman is not only cheating but clearly also not using protection.

    I think that is more or less the definition of a slut.

Share This Page