Your Legislature At Work
January 12th, 2007 | by Craig |So, I was plugging through this page looking for more stupid bills to comment on, and to my chagrin, it took me a while to find one.
Don’t get me wrong; it wasn’t because there were a whole bunch of good ones. At first blush, I’d say 90% of them are amending current obscure legislation, such as “Disclosure of preferred provider contracting with nonpreferred provider” (which, if you are paying attention, kids, here’s one of the myriad of reasons why health care costs are spiraling out of control.)
Finally, this one caught my eye: HB246, which requires a DNA sample if you are charged with a felony.
Not convicted, mind you. Charged.
Check out this clause: “(6) A biological sample taken pursuant to this section for the purposes of DNA testing may be retained for use in the DNA identification index without a further proceeding and without further notice to the person from whom the sample was taken.”
Wow. So much for that presumed innocence thing.
This one is sponsored by Ralph Heinert of Libby, who incidentally is also introducing legislation to amend the current definition of fishing from a boat to allow someone to use two rods and two lines.
I didn’t even know it was against the law to use more than one rod while in a boat.
14 Responses to “Your Legislature At Work”
By Randy on Jan 12, 2007 | Reply
“I didn’t even know it was against the law to use more than one rod while in a boat.”
Interesting, I’ve never read anything like that in the fishing regs and I don’t think it’s in the 2006 regs either. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
By Craig on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Well, let me refer you to 87-2-120, MCA, and you can decide whether you are right or wrong.
By Steve on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
This is of course (the required DNA testing) just another step along the way to ceding all of our rights to the government “for our own good.”
I suggest we implement this law in stages. For the first five years, all elected representatives have to provide a DNA sample when they file for office. Then, for the next five years, all prosecutors.
By darkman on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Yeah I heard they actually take your photo and fingerprints too.
By Jim - PRS on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Darkman beat me to it. A DNA specimen (usually a cheek swab) is really no different and being fingerprinted when charged with a crime.
By Craig on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Still and all, I’m not entirely sure this is a direction I’m comfortable with.
I’m probably just being paranoid, but then again, are you really paranoid if they are out to get you?
Hmmm….
By Steve on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
The differnce is, that your fingerprints can’t be accessed by your medical insurer in order to find out that you have an increased risk of some cancer or the probability of heart disease in order to deny you coverage. Or for that matter, some future employer who doesn’t want to see his health expenses going up based on probabilities that you aren’t even aware of.
DNA is more than an identifier, it is YOUR identifier.
By Steve on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Because I am privacy conscious, I may have been too quick about complaining. The difference between DNA and fingerprints or a photograph is what you hold open to the public. Everyone who sees you can recognize your mug. Touch anything and you leave fingerprints, although you could wear gloves. But DNA is not something that is normally exposed to the public.
This is a lot like the use of thermal imaging to look at your house. Supposedly, it doesn’t reveal intimate details, but you can make out people walking around, sitting on the toilet, or making love. Do you really think that is something that the public needs to have access to?
I would rather fart in the privacy of my own home without public supervision thank you.
By darkman on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
They now have the ability to get a DNA sample from a smudged unuseable finger print.
What is to stop your medical insurer from getting a DNA sample before insuring you?
At least they are not taking a DNA sample for misdemeanor arrests. They still take your photo and finger prints for those arrests.
I fear the loss of my privacy too, but I also know that most crimes are committed by the same people. If you catch them in one felony the odds are that there are several others that they haven’t been charged with because of lack of evidence.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Yep, this one is really bad. Thanks for pointing it out.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Small point, it’s HB264, you did the invert-the-last-two-numbers-thing that I am famous for
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Dang it. I mean HB263. That means you did the famous add one and then invert the last two numbers.
By Jim - PRS on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
The police don’t keep a sample of one’s DNA, but rather it is sent to a lab where a specific region is sequenced for forensic (identity) purposes. It is result of that sequencing that is retained and compared against others when necessary to look for a match. Different regions of the DNA (i.e. a region containing a sequence, a genetic marker, shown to be predictive or diagnostic of a disease state) would have to be amplified and detected to be used as a medical diagnostic tool.
By Jeanne on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
While I share Craig’s concerns, there is a mechanism to expunge the DNA records if the charges are dropped or the conviction is reversed.
Not so with fingerprinting and photos.