In class, we discussed that it would be much easier to solve crimes if EVERYONE's DNA was required to be on file. However, many people have objections to this--some think it is a violation of civil rights, some think it is a privacy issue, and others are afraid of being discriminated against by insurance companies. Please think about all of those opinions and decide what you think by answering the following questions:
- Do you think that everyone should be required to provide DNA samples at birth?
- If so, what are the advantages of doing this?
- If not, what is your biggest reason for being against it?
- Do you think that all people convicted of a crime should have to provide DNA?
- If yes, what is your biggest reason for this?
- If not, what kinds of criminals do you think should be included in the databases (misdemeanors? violent crimes? felons? all people in prison?)
- If a crime was comitted in your neighborhood and a police officer asked for a DNA sample from you--how would you react? Explain.
I think that giving DNA samples at birth could a violation of privacy and could be used against anyone one person. Someone working in the institute where they house cold easily frame a person or persons. Unless this place was run by robots I wouldn't want it happening.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of things this could be great mechanism to find wanted criminals. Knowing everyones DNA could help solve any problems involvng contamination. Anyone who is convicted of a crime should deffinetly be on file. I know that would make me sleep easier at night.
If a police came up to me and told me there was a crime in my neihborhood and he needed a sample of my DNA I wouldn't want to ecxept. I would be pretty pissed off because that me think that he thinks that I am involved. If I refuse the same thing will happen. That reaaly sound pretty unnerving to me.
I think that everyone should be required to provide DNA samples at birth. this is because people who convect the crimes would be found all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone who does commit a crime has to provide their DNA. I think this because crimes usually happen again by the same people who already committed the crime, giving them their DNA could allow them to convict the criminals easier.
I wouldn't react in a bad way, i would probable ask my parents whats going on and listen to what my parents tell me.
I think that requiring people to give DNA samples at birth is perfectly fine. I mean, why not, It would just help stop crime for the future. I think the prosecutors must have other evidence if this is used though, you can't just prosecute somebody with this being the only proof.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a serious enough crime I definitely think that everybody who commits a crime must give a DNA sample, and make sure they know that their DNA is in a database and they probably shouldn't commit a crime again.
I'm not going to kill anybody, so I would probably say something like, "Of course." Then they probably would realize that I probably wouldn't be involved
I think it is ok for DNA to be taken at birth because it would allow the doctors to know if there are any disorders in the baby and there would be a record of everybodys DNA and it would discoursge criminals becaus e they could be caught easily.
ReplyDeleteI think that only people who commit serious or potentially dangerous crimes should have to provide DNA samples so they cannot continue. I think that it is not necessary to have the DNA of someone who steals candy or food from a store.
I would ask what happened and be very polite. I would want to make sure that he isn't a fake cop trying to steal my genetic information if I didn't know what the crime was, otherwise,
I would simply agree.
I beleive that there would be too much of a backup on testing. Also that people can keep their DNA to themselves. If your DNA is in the system anyone in the police can see it. There is no way that you can not be what your DNA tells you to be. If some has your DNA and can decode it they know almost everything about you.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that people who have commited a crime should have DNA tested and entered in the system. This is because if all that data was processed. There would be a better chance of finding second effendors.
If the police asked for my DNA, I would probable agee, but ask what they wanted it for.
I think it's pointless to take DNA samples when a child is born because it's not like they're going to commit a crime at such a you age. I also think that NOT everyone's DNA should be taken because people have the right to privacy and I remember in class we talked about how even though they say they won't use your DNA for anything but solving rape and murder investigations, doesn't mean they won't. And if they were to use your DNA for something else you should have the right to be notified about it before anythings done.
ReplyDeleteDNA should be provided by people in jail for violent crimes only.
If a cop were to ask for my DNA because of a crime scene here in Ithaca I would probably say yes because I wouldn't want to seem guilty, also even though I feel strongly about people having that right to privacy I'm not against personally giving a sample of MY OWN DNA.
I think that everyone should be required to have a DNA sample taken a birth. Doing this would cause less of a hassle in the future because their DNA will already be on file and there is easy access to it. That doesn't mean that anyone can look at a person's genetic information though, there would have to be very good security.
ReplyDeleteI believe that everyone who committed serious crime like rape or murder should absolutely give their DNA, and have it kept in the system, because it would be a lot easier to convict that person if something happened again in the future.
If a police officer asked me for a sample of my DNA I would first ask him what exactly happened and why he/she wanted my DNA. I would do this because I don't want to willingly give them my genetic information for no reason. If the police officer did answer all my questions and had a good enough reason, I would give them a sample of my DNA because I wouldn't want to seem guilty.
I think that it should not be up to the parents to have their child give a DNA sample at birth, because maybe later in life that person may not want to have a sample of their DNA in some database where someone could break in and maybe take. If this happens they could plant that DNA at a crime scene and have that person arrested for doing nothing. I do think that all people convicted for a crime should give DNA so that if they found DNA at the crime scene they could match it up with the samples. I would politely say no, because I know I had nothing to do with it and even if they get suspicious I wouldn't care because I didn't have anything to do with it.
DeleteI definitely think that everyone should have to provid a DNA sample at birth. This would be a more efficient way of catching people for crimes and not sending anymore innocent people to jail. The DNA database would have to be confidential and only a few would be able to look at them.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who commited a serious crime should have to give a DNA sample because this would prevent more crimes since the convicts would know they could be caught easily. Also it would be more efficient since a lot of people commit more than one crime.
I would ask for an explanation because they can't just go around and take DNA samples from who ever they want. If it was a good explanation I would give it to them.
I think that everyone should be required to provide a DNA sample which would just be taken when they're born. It would definitely help stop or at least reduce violent crimes, it would be much easier to stop serial murders, and it be a way to identify unknown dead bodies. I mean, a lot of people say it might lead to insurance companies not covering someone based on their risk for diseases, but I think IF they were to require a DNA sample from everyone, it would have to be extremely private information that can only be accessed if a crime were to happen. Like, it shouldn't just be free for anyone to use, and should be heavily guarded.
ReplyDeleteI think anyone who commits a crime (big or small) should need to provide DNA, because a lot of people that have committed crimes before, commit crimes again. Like 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, so I think anyone who commits a crime should have to provide a DNA sample to stop it from happening again.
I would give them a sample of my DNA because I know I didn't do anything, but I would still ask them why they need it, because if they didn't have a very good explanation, I might be a bit worried.
Nobody should be force to give DNA except if an officer of the law has a order from a judge. It is a violation of privacy and there is no reason for it. If you suspect that every person will commit a crime, then you are insane. On top of the fact that DNA doesn't show up at every crime scene. It would not reduce crimes because if someone is going to commit a crime, they're going to commit a crime.
ReplyDeletePersons in jail should only be able to be forced to give a DNA sample if they are in prison for a violent crime and were sentenced to five years or more.
If an Officer asked me for a DNA sample I would ask why and say no, get a court order.
Yes i think that all people at birth should provide DNA samples because that way we would have a lot less crime, although I do think that only certain people should have access to the information so as not to be used against a person in anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think that people convicted of a crime that could involve the life of someone else or are a high profile criminal should have to give DNA not people who do graffiti or something similar.
I would give it to them because hopefully I would not be guilty of the crime.
Do you think that everyone should be required to provide DNA samples at birth?
ReplyDeleteIf so, what are the advantages of doing this?
If not, what is your biggest reason for being against it?
Do you think that all people convicted of a crime should have to provide DNA?
If yes, what is your biggest reason for this?
If not, what kinds of criminals do you think should be included in the databases (misdemeanors? violent crimes? felons? all people in prison?)
If a crime was comitted in your neighborhood and a police officer asked for a DNA sample from you--how would you react? Explain.
I dont think that everyone should have to give DNA samples at birth. It seems like it could cause a lot of problems because not everyone would want to give up their DNA. Not everyone would want to so it doesn't seem right. I think all people who have committed crimes should have to give a DNA sample, they are the ones who are most likely to do it again. Also now we could force them into giving their DNA because they committed a crime. If a police officer asked for a DNA sample from me I would give it because im not going to commit any crimes.
I believe that everyone should give a DNA sample at birth. It could make crime solving much simpler and faster.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that every criminal should give up a DNA sample, because it would be easier to check if any past criminals have committed a second crime.
If i was asked to give up a DNA sample I wouldn't mind it. I would be scared of the fact that a crime had been committed in my neighborhood but I would want to do anything I could to help them potentially solve the crime since I know that I would never commit a crime.
I think that taking a DNA sample at birth would be perfectly fine. Not only would it convict people a lot more easily but also exonerate people a lot more easily. As long as the database was secure and insurance companies couldn't view it, I don't see why not.
ReplyDeleteLet's say Justin X. Ample is driving from Town A to Town B and on the way gets pulled over for speeding. (Let's assume that this is in a world where everyone's DNA is taken at birth.) In Town A there has been a series of rapes and DNA evidence from all of those match Justin's DNA. Also a witness reports a car that looks like his leaving the scene of the crime. Due to the description of the car, when police pull this man over for speeding they have reasonable belief that he is their man. They swab his cheek and find the DNA taken by the side of the road matches both previous sets of DNA from birth and from the crimes. Because of this evidence, he is taken to court and convicted. Due to the success of this case the police begin to take DNA sample from all criminals (as small as speeding or as big as drug trafficking) and end up having a much higher conviction rate of rapists/murderers/other serious criminals I would feel a lot safer knowing that they were able to put these people away.
Say I lived in Town A and they suspected me for the rapes (before they've discovered the DNA matches Mr. Ample's and they have no other reason than that I live the neighborhood where the rapes occurred) then I would very willingly give a DNA sample so that my innocence could be proven.
I personally do not think that people should need to submit DNA at birth. Doing so would be like the government asking police search everybody's house on a regular basis. It is basically a violation of the 4th amendment which guards against “unlawful search and seizure”. I do not think that all people who commit a crime should have to give DNA samples but people in prison should need to give samples as well as parolees and sex offenders. But not people in jails or people convicted of misdemeanors. if an officer who was investigating a murder in my neighborhood and asked me for a DNA sample i would give him one because I don't want to get in the way of an investigation and i trust the police and there methods of DNA profiling.
ReplyDeleteI think that DNA should be taken at birth because It would make convicting criminals faster, identifying mutilated bodies faster, make paternal tests available even if one parent doesn't want one, and also make it harder to convict the wrong person for a crime.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone gives DNA at birth criminals won't need to give DNA samples anymore, but DNA wasn't given at birth then taking samples from all sorts of criminals is a good idea.
If people wanted me to give a DNA sample I would obviously give one to avoid suspicion unless I had done the crime in which I wouldn't stay in the same neighborhood.
I think that everyone should provide samples of DNA given at birth because it will make solving crimes a lot easier and faster. There would be a lot less crime in our world and we would all be very safe. However, I would be worried about my DNA being "stolen" and being used for something else or being discriminated against because of it. Maybe they could make a law specifying that employers can't use DNA profiles to judge somebody on how their performance is going to be.
DeleteI think anyone who commits any crime should have to provide a DNA sample. They committed a crime and should be punished for it and if they commit another crime, they should be easy to catch. We can't only have felons put in prison while misdemeanors still out there doing bad things.
If a police officer asked me to give a DNA sample, I would definitely give them one to avoid suspicion and it would help them out. I didn't commit the crime so I would have nothing to worry about anyway (hopefully).
I think everyone should have to give samples at birth. That way, everyone is on file, so it might make people less likely to commit a crime, because we could catch them more easily. The DNA should, however, only be used for specific things, like solving crimes. Health insurance companies should not be able to access them.
ReplyDeleteI think all people who commit a crime should be on file, because all people would already be on file from birth.
I would give my DNA, because if I didn't commit the crime, the DNA would prove me innocent. However, if there was a mix up, then I may be wrongly accused, and that would be bad.
I don't think that people should be required to provide a DNA sample at birth because insurance companies may discriminate if they know that person has a condition that may cost the company a lot of money. I don't think that all people who committed a crime should have to give a DNA sample, I think only people rusty have committed multiple crimes should because if they have done it several times they most likely will do it again. If a crime wss committed in my neighborhood and a police officer asked me for my DNA I wouldn't know how to react because that is kind of a wired question.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone should be DNA tested at birth because then everyone is in the system and the information is very useful and accurate for solving crimes and it can also be used to identify people who were killed at war or or in a crime. I think that all criminals should be in the system because the more people tested the higher the chance you'll get a match.
DeleteIf a crime was comitted in my neighborhood I would give my DNA sample to prove my innocence.
I don't think that everyone should be required to give a DNA sample at birth, because by the time they get older they might not want their DNA on file for any number of innocent reasons. I would be afraid that health insurance companies could use the DNA to discriminate against people, or someone might steal DNA from the database and plant it at the crime scene to frame someone else. I think that only people who have committed serious crimes should have to give DNA samples, but that they should be heavily guarded. If police asked for a DNA sample I would refuse, unless there was a law that said the police had to get rid of all the DNA samples they got of innocent people after they solved the crime, because I don't want my DNA stored forever in a database just because of a crime that happened once in my neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that giving DNA samples at birth should be a requirement. I say this because it could help identify an unidentified body of someone whose remains are too damaged to be recognized by anyone without DNA sampling. I want all families to know that their loved one is dead rather than always wondering what happened to them. I think all people convicted of a crime should give a DNA sample, because who else would have a greater chance to commit a crime than a formal criminal? I believe it would make the world safer, because criminals now have the burden of knowing that they can be easily identified if they leave even the tiniest hair. If there was a crime in my neighborhood I would give my DNA sample to the police officer, because I have nothing to lose if I'm not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think that it wouldn't be bad if every person born starting on some date had to give a DNA sample, because it would prove wrongly accused people in jail innocent, and help to find criminals easily. But it would take quite a while before all of the population in the U.S. could have their DNA on record, and we would still have a problwm with ilegal immigrants who commit crime and don't have their DNA on record. We would also need someone who is completely reliable to keep track of the DNA who would never use a person's DNA for anything malicious. If police asked me to give a DNA sample because of a crime in my neighborhood, I would, but reluctantly, i would have to ask if they were taking samples from everybody, and if they wren't, if they had any evidence that led to me.
ReplyDelete1. I'm not fully convinced that collecting everybody's DNA samples at birth would be effective as some people say. The amount of information being handled will be as large as the significance. Obtaining everybody's DNA to just solve crimes seems like an "overuse." Also, I'm not even sure if I can trust anybody 100% that they won't mis-use the info.
ReplyDelete2. Only people like murderers, serial killers, rapists, who have commited major crimes should be kept in file.
3. I would be uncomfortable that there is a possibility that the police is doubting me as one of the suspects, but I would end of giving my DNA as long as I'm ensured that it will be destroyed after use.
I disagree with the idea that every person should provide their DNA at birth. These days are kind of people are trying to hack the computers in the government. If anyone succeed in hacking the computer that contains the DNA information, the hackers will get all the information about me.
ReplyDeleteYes, people who have went to prison are considered 'dangerous'. If these people know that the government have their DNA the criminals would more likely not commit a crime.
Yes, I will give the police my DNA, but I will tell the police officer not to keep my DNA after they catch the criminal.
I think that collecting a sample of everyone's DNA at their birth wouldn't be bad, because it would prove wrongly accused people to be innocent and take them out of jail. It could also help find criminals easily. But one problem with this is, the amount of time it would take to put all the DNA on record.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think all people who have committed a crime should have to provide DNA. If someone is released from a previous conviction and they commit another crime, then it would be really easy to put them back into jail.
If a police officer came up to me and asked for my DNA sample because of a crime in my neighborhood, I wouldn't react badly. I would let them take a sample because then I could prove them wrong of thinking I am a suspect.
Yes everyone should be required to provide DNA samples at birth because if someone knew that their DNA was on file maybe they wouldn't commit a crime. Yes if someone commuted a crime then they should have to provide their DNA because they committed the crime so they should be subjected to having their DNA taken. I would give them my dna because I know I didn't commit the crime so why should I have anything to hide then they could rule me out and get on with the investigation.
ReplyDeleteYes i think that everyone should give a sample of DNA at birth. Some advantages are if someone you held a grudge with died and you were a suspect for that reason, forensics could check DNA samples at the crime scene and if it doesn't match the data base then you are exonerated.
ReplyDeleteYes i believe that all people convicted of a crime must provide a DNA sample. The biggest reason for that is because if a convicted person is seemingly a key suspect in an investigation and you have no DNA profile in there database, it will cause much more conflict in the future.
If a crime were to ever be committed in my neighborhood it wouldn't bother me to give DNA samples as long as the police told me what had happened.
Yes i think everyone should give a sample at birth, because this way if a crime was committed there a more reliable way to find the doer of the crime. A flaw with this i could point out is the whole thing on keeping tabs on home births, so therefor maybe not everybody would give a sample.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone who committed any crime of any sort should give a DNA sample even if they are not suspected of doing a certain type of crime it's nice to have a sample on hand, and people who commit felonies should definitely have a sample kept on hand because they are the most likely yo commit another crime of the sort.
I would willingly give a sample with the strong knowledge that i didn't do it, but i would be nervous do get framed for something one didn't do
I don't think that everyone should be required to provide DNA samples at birth, mainly because of privacy and because if there's an error in the system that takes care of the DNA samples, it can make innocent people guilty and disadvantageous.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree that all people convicted of a crime should provide their DNA. This is because even if a person convicted a really small crime, that person has a greater possibility to convict a huge crime than people that haven't convicted any crimes before.
If a crime was commited in my neighborhood and the police says to give DNA samples I'll probably ask them what is exactly going around over here and the reason that I should give DNA samples to them. If I don't think the reason is enough, I'd probably refuse.
Even though that I would detest it. I think it is a great way to find it useful in society. This method of collecting DNA from individual may contribute not only in catching criminals, but also with health and scientific research. If DNA is provided from billions of people, scientist will eventually find out more knowledge hidden in DNA and human aspects, which may help also in health in a long term.
ReplyDeleteShould cirminal provide their own DNA? I certainly cannot disagree with this, because since more than 15% of criminals convict second or more crimes, it is undoubtfully useful method to find a real culprit.
When police comes in and asks for the blood samples or some DNA, I will refuse it at first, because if I also committed the crime it is dangerous to give it away, and if I am just an innocent civilian it still sounds weird to give away my DNA since it is also my privacy. But if they somehow need it than I should just agree to it.
i think it should be optional because you shouldn't be forced to give away that kind if information but it would also be useful to solve many crimes and may help discover ways to cure diseases.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone convicted of crimes should give their DNA to help prevent them from committing more crimes in the future because they would know it would be harder to get away with the crimes.
If the police asked for my DNA because of a crime committed in my neighborhood i would first ask for details then make sure my DNA was erased after it was analyzed.
I dont think that people should be required to provide a DNA sample at birth to put on record. I believe that if this were required it would be an invasion of personal privacy and of personal rights. Also if the government had a copy of everyones DNA they could frame people for crimes that they didnt commit.
ReplyDeleteI think that people who have only been convicted of serious or violent crimes, such as rape or murder, should have to provide a sample of their DNA to put on record.
If a crime was committed in my neighborhood and a police officer came to my door and asked me for a sample of my DNA I wouldnt know what to say. If I said no it could seem suspicious but also I feel giving them my DNA would be an invasion of personal privacy and rights.
I think that having all of the DNA is a really great idea, but it might be used in a bad way. I would only approve of it if I was completely sure that the DNA was being used to solve crimes, and not for other reasons. If people want to use it for research, they should ask before taking it. Having all of this DNA could help scientists discover many new things, which is good.
ReplyDeleteA problem with having DNA samples taken from you is that you can never know exactly what the government would do with them. There's no way to stop them from lying about what they'll do with the samples.
Forcing people who commit a crime to give DNA samples would make me feel safer, but that doesn't mean that it's right. I think that it's a violation of their rights.
If a police officer asked, I would probably give my DNA, but I understand that a lot of people feel uncomfortable by that idea, so everybody should be able to choose. People shouldn't be suspicious of them if they refuse to give DNA samples.
Personally, I wouldn't mind it if everyone had to give DNA at birth; the US has a pretty high rate of violent crime and it would definitely help solve crimes and also deter potential criminals. That being said, it is a violation of rights and the possibility of yet another kind of discrimination in this country is definitely something to think about. I definitely think it's an option for the future but a lot of flaws would need to be worked out first. I think that everyone that commits crimes should be required to submit DNA. People who commit violent or bigger crimes should have their DNA in the system for life and those who commit misdemeanors and smaller crimes should have their DNA removed from the system after a certain amount of time, provided they don't commit another crime. If I was asked for a DNA sample by a police officer, I'd first ask how it would be used and if they were going to keep it on file, but I don't think I'd really have a problem giving a sample at all.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind if everyone had to give DNA at birth, Only those who aren't law abiding citizens would a problem with it. Having fingerprints and DNA on file will not just serve the purpose of finding a guilty person, but also in identifying corpses, paternities, etc.
ReplyDeleteFor those against it is probably because insurance companies will be able to tell, by looking at your
DNA, how susceptible you are to certain diseases. And they may refuse to write you an insurance policy.
I believe all people who have convicted a crime should definitely have to provide a DNA sample. however, as Elise said, those who commit misdemeanors or smaller crimes could have their DNA removed afterwards.
If a a police officer asked me for my DNA i would give it to him, though it would be completely unnecessary.
I think its fine for everyone to give DNA at birth, so many crimes are committed and so many bad things happen that it seems like it would be easier to get the finger pointed at you. If your innocent, having the DNA sample could very well help your prove your case. It seems like it would also stop people from doing some bad things because they would know that their DNA sample is out there. Not wanting your DNA taken at birth is understandable, but I still feel like it makes more sense to get it taken. There are much more pros than cons.
ReplyDeleteI think that anyone who has committed a crime should have to give DNA . It might seem unfair for a non guilty person to not have ton get their DNA sample taken and a guilty person to have to. But I feel like if it will put the person in jail and make the suspect feel safe, or help find a missing child, or really effect the case, then its worth it. It seems to me that most of the time its worth it.
If this happened to me I would feel a little worried and like a bit of disrespect, but I would give it to them knowing it was the right thing to do.
I don't think that people should be required to give DNA samples at birth. I feel that it would be an invasion of privacy and it would be bad if DNA was used in choosing someone for a job or other purposes that aren't involved in a criminal investigation. I do think that people convicted of a crime should have to give a DNA sample. I think that if someone commits a crime there is a strong possibility that they will again so it makes sense. If there was a crime in my neighborhood i would give my DNA because i would want to help the police officer catch whoever did it so my neighborhood would be safer.
ReplyDeleteI think it's okay, as long as no one will examine or use the DNA sample unless a crime is commited. This is not a bad thing, since there are no down sides-it's like another part of your birth certificate. There will be a library of DNA info, and when investigators find DNA at a crime scene, they can just run it through the system to find a match. This way, the guilty person will be arrested, and the innocent person will be let go, and there won't be any problems.
ReplyDeleteIf a crime was comitted in my neighborhood and a police officer asked for a DNA sample from me, I would give a sample because it would only help and I have nothing to lose.
yes i think that people should get their DNA samples taken at birth. if peopel get their DNA taken at birth, they would know this as they grow up and probably be scared to do a crime because they know that their DNA is known. if someone had commited a crime then they should have their DNA samples taken. if they commit a crime, they could commit another one.if i knew that i had nothing to do with the crime i would let the officer take my DNA sample. however, people have been misproven guilty, so that chance would be in the back of my mind,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that everyone should have DNA samples collected at birth, because most of all it provides a deterrent to people who might otherwise become criminals. However, it should only be done if the information can be properly guarded.
ReplyDeleteI also think that anyone who has commited a crime should have to provide DNA, because again it deters them from future criminal acts.
If an officer asked me for my DNA, I would consent only if I was sure there was no way the information could be used falsely; otherwise, its simple and easy to do (so long as you aren't guilty that is)
I think that it would be unnessasary to provide DNA samples at birth because not only is it a violation of privacy, but there are also many flaws in the plan of keeping all this information. If something like your DNA was to get leaked to the wrong person, who knows what kind of trouble you would get in. Yes, I think all people convicted of a crime should have to submit DNA samples, cause then it would be easier to catch them if they ever do it again. If an officer asked me for a DNA sample I would as them if it was going to be filed after it was used. If so, I would ask if there's any other possible way not to do this. If not then I would refuse to give it to them. I find it somewhat scary to know that everyone they tested before is on file. That's just like a big holding place for disaters and crimes to committed.
ReplyDeleteI do think everybody should provide a DNA sample at birth. People won't commit crimes often and when they do they could be easily caught.
ReplyDeleteCriminals should provide DNA depending on the severity of the crime.
I would not give my DNA, I would feel insulted if a police officer asked for a DNA sample. I would feel like the officer is already accusing me of the crime.
PokerStars Casino (JHOB) - JeW Marriott Resort
ReplyDeletePokerStars Casino · The Stars Group Poker · The Stars Group 군산 출장마사지 Poker · The 이천 출장안마 Star Poker · 충청북도 출장샵 The World Poker Tour · Gold Nugget 충주 출장샵 Poker · World Poker Tour. 진주 출장샵