Ruben Rosario: New DNA technique: Does it fight crime or deprive rights?

There are 20 comments on the Mar 19, 2011, TwinCities.com story titled Ruben Rosario: New DNA technique: Does it fight crime or deprive rights?. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Cops and prosecutors support it. Civil-rights watchdogs have Big Brother-type concerns about it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Free thanks to DNA

Saint Paul, MN

#2 Mar 20, 2011
You have to wonder who it is that Ruben has locked up in his family. Not one time has he ever been pro law enforcement, or demonstrated that the victims rights should be considered ahead of the predator.
For example:

Misinformation #1-Christine Funk, a public defender with DNA legal expertise, cautioned that such searches expand genetic surveillance "beyond those who have committed crimes." Bullshat. The DNA tested is from criminals. The "Expertise" must be pretty lame or Ruben would have tossed In fact, Funks own web site gives NO eductation in the matter of DNA. I guess that makes me an expert on Chinese food too. I've been eatting it longer than Funk has claimed to be an expert in DNA.

Misinformation#2-She also noted that familial searching has a failure rate of 90 percent, based on the United Kingdom's experience.
"This is not going to open the floodgates on convictions," she said. Really? 90 percent? Dear lady, why are you hiding behind the United Kingdom for your example? Why not compare the conviction rate for Domestic Assault in Irac vs the North Pole. Hey what ever works for her I guess.

Misinformation #3-Carolyn Jackson, lobbying coordinator of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the bill another example of "mission creep." Of course it is. Look at the works of Project Freedom who have embraced the use of DNA to free those wrongly imprisoned. What does Carolyn Jackson have against freeing the innocent? I'm not talking because of some kind of legal wrangling, but because some one was actually innocent.

Misinformation#4-"DNA is your blueprint; that's who you are," she said. "When the state takes that for inclusion in a criminal investigation, that is an extremely invasive situation." Ah, not it's not. A swab of the inner cheek, saliva, blood. Most tests are done via a cotton swab. Leave it to a lobbyist to cloud the facts with their own "facts". The "coordinator" of the ACLU. As misguided (I still don't think Osama Bin Laden deserves the same rights as the victims) as the ACLU appears to be, not they want to be on both sides of the fence.
I could be in prison if not for DNA. But, Ruben and Funk and Jackson seem to want to stop this technique, or at the very least, only use it when it gets one of their clients released.
So, which side is Ruben on today? The criminals or the felons?
MIke

Winona, MN

#3 Mar 20, 2011
I think that Reuben could have put it better but I agree with his concerns. It is right to look at the experience in the UK because they have been using this technique longer and have an established track record of it's success of lack of. I also remember that the UK was where an unsolved murder was cleared by asking all the men in the town and neighboring area's to "volunteer" a DNA sample. Those who refused came under immediate suspicion including the man who was eventually discovered and prosecuted. This mission creep I worry about is that the scope of the search will be eventually expanded to non criminal base DNA. Do we really want a national data base for citizen DNA held by the states or federal government? I know the claim is that this will not happen, but just how many people are routinely finger printed today for a variety of non criminal reasons and they are now in someone's data base for life. I know that the claim is that the law forbids this but I also know that it takes the stroke of a pen on a bill and the desire to change the rules. My bottom line on this issue is GO SLOW.
NUTSTOU

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Mar 20, 2011
Of course Maryland and the District would ban it. In as much as the black population of D.C., Baltimore , and Prince Georges County commits over 75 % of the violent crimes , in those areas. A large share of the population would be suspect, and of course we cannot have racial profiling, which allowing this technique would mean in these areas. Even if it does catch the violent offender. 90 % of this crime is black on black! Prince Georges County , Maryland, that had court ordered busing for desegrecation, in 1972, has become a mostly black county and just last week announced there were over 55,000 criminal warrents outstanding. Mean while, adjacent , Montgomery County, with a larger, mostly white population, has less than 3000 criminal warrants outstanding.All the politically correct politicians are really afraid of a technigue that would help catch the criminals, when so many are minorities.
Sarah D

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Mar 20, 2011
After reading the article I have to agree that more thought and discussion needs to be put into this bill. As it is written now, there is a lack of accountability which could lead to frequent abuse of the law.

I'm not against the purpose of this law per se but there MUST be strict accountability. Right now it doesn't sound like the language of the law is tight enough. It needs more work.
yo-yo

Inver Grove Heights, MN

#8 Mar 20, 2011
Why don't you all go get drunk or something.
eee

Duluth, MN

#9 Mar 20, 2011
It is about time we have a reliable system to catch these "big shot" criminals that hide behind technicallities of the court system rather than MAN up to what they did.....a terrible crime.
joe

Cottage Grove, MN

#10 Mar 20, 2011
typical Ruben, criminals and ILLEGALS first.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#12 Mar 20, 2011
joe wrote:
typical Ruben, criminals and ILLEGALS first.
The author did not state an opinion. He repeated other's statements in a well-researched story. The persons who were against the bill were the sources of the statements you obviously took as him being against the bill. He also included statements that were for the bill, and statements about what improvements some people thought were necessary. You just see arguments against the bill, attribute them to him, and then attack him (in a totally illiterate and misspelled way). If he had left those statements against the bill out, you might have been happier with him, but then the story would not have been representative of the situation. Please grow up and learn English.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#13 Mar 20, 2011
digger wrote:
With all of the unsolved heinous crimes that are still out there, you would think that a 'social justice' advocate like Rueben would embrace a logical, methodical, FACTUAL process to take these dangerous thugs off of our streets. But NOOOOooo.
Let the guilty continue to victimize society, just because they aren't straight, white, Christian, english-speaking people, mostly men. How could any reasonable person ever take him seriously after he writes and prints a rabble of an article like this?
He didn't take a stand against the bill. You just misinterpreted the story that way because you can't read and reason. He presented a well-balanced view of the situation at the hearing. He reported on both those who argue against it and those who argue for it. You just don't like that he included those who argued against it. Too bad.

Your statement that he wants to let non-whites and non-Christians get away with crime, which is not supported by the story or anything else he has ever written, is pure bunk. You nade it up. It appears that anything that goes against your opinions is racism against you. You are one sad little person, small in mind and small in honor.
Del Negro

Lindstrom, MN

#14 Mar 20, 2011
Can i getta forte from ya bro?
yo-yo wrote:
Why don't you all go get drunk or something.
Del Ne-grow

Lindstrom, MN

#15 Mar 20, 2011
Any one who has ever read Ruben knows that his sole plan is hate whitey.
gitmo wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't take a stand against the bill. You just misinterpreted the story that way because you can't read and reason. He presented a well-balanced view of the situation at the hearing. He reported on both those who argue against it and those who argue for it. You just don't like that he included those who argued against it. Too bad.
Your statement that he wants to let non-whites and non-Christians get away with crime, which is not supported by the story or anything else he has ever written, is pure bunk. You nade it up. It appears that anything that goes against your opinions is racism against you. You are one sad little person, small in mind and small in honor.
digger

Circle Pines, MN

#18 Mar 21, 2011
gitmo wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't take a stand against the bill. You just misinterpreted the story that way because you can't read and reason. He presented a well-balanced view of the situation at the hearing. He reported on both those who argue against it and those who argue for it. You just don't like that he included those who argued against it. Too bad.
Your statement that he wants to let non-whites and non-Christians get away with crime, which is not supported by the story or anything else he has ever written, is pure bunk. You nade it up. It appears that anything that goes against your opinions is racism against you. You are one sad little person, small in mind and small in honor.
\
You know what, "GITMO", you just stuck your BIG FAT FOOT in your MOUTH. If I was as 'racist' as you insinuated, YOU wouldn't have felt the need to have my post DELETED, and only repeat the part that played into your PROPAGANA. You would have left it as it was, and let the masses decide. But I guess you think that the masses are too stupid, or TOO SMART to see it and figger it out.

The FACT IS, "ruben" didn't have ANYTHING honorable to say about our local LAW ENFORCEMENT, he just used his 'journalistic credentials' to SLAM IT, and hopes that his
'journalistic immunity', keeps him out of the SLAMMER. Good thing he's not 'expressing his opinion' from China.
Hochgeboren

Saint Paul, MN

#19 Mar 21, 2011
Everyone in the U.S. should have a DNA profile on record. This will allow speedier apprehension of criminals. It will also allow, at some time in the future, segregation and possible sterilization of those who carry genetic aberrations or are predisposed to criminal behavior.
JEROME

United States

#21 Mar 22, 2011
Hochgeboren wrote:
Everyone in the U.S. should have a DNA profile on record. This will allow speedier apprehension of criminals. It will also allow, at some time in the future, segregation and possible sterilization of those who carry genetic aberrations or are predisposed to criminal behavior.
YA Ya : and also how about the mark of the beast on everybody!
digger

Circle Pines, MN

#23 Mar 22, 2011
gitmo wrote:
<quoted text>
The author did not state an opinion. He repeated other's statements in a well-researched story. The persons who were against the bill were the sources of the statements you obviously took as him being against the bill. He also included statements that were for the bill, and statements about what improvements some people thought were necessary. You just see arguments against the bill, attribute them to him, and then attack him (in a totally illiterate and misspelled way). If he had left those statements against the bill out, you might have been happier with him, but then the story would not have been representative of the situation. Please grow up and learn English.
Ruben didn't research SQUAT. He just picked out stories or studies that supported his position, included them in his OPINION, and tried to state them as FACT. He TRIED to sound 'unbiased', but his bias clearly showed through, as it does whenever he writes an article regarding law enforcement procedures. Yet, from what I know, Ruben has NEVER BEEN a Law Enforcement Officer OR a LAWYER OR a JUDGE. When Ruben has gone back to SCHOOL and learned the nuts and bolts about law enforcement, state and federal law, and how the judicial system actually works, Please let me know.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#24 Mar 23, 2011
digger wrote:
<quoted text>
\
You know what, "GITMO", you just stuck your BIG FAT FOOT in your MOUTH. If I was as 'racist' as you insinuated, YOU wouldn't have felt the need to have my post DELETED, and only repeat the part that played into your PROPAGANA. You would have left it as it was, and let the masses decide. But I guess you think that the masses are too stupid, or TOO SMART to see it and figger it out.
The FACT IS, "ruben" didn't have ANYTHING honorable to say about our local LAW ENFORCEMENT, he just used his 'journalistic credentials' to SLAM IT, and hopes that his
'journalistic immunity', keeps him out of the SLAMMER. Good thing he's not 'expressing his opinion' from China.
I didn't have your screed deleted. That was Yahoo.

He didn't slam anything. He reported both sides of the argument. He took no stand on the issue. His story covered the viewpoints of those who support the bill. If anyone else had written the article, and I suspect it would have been close to the same article if anyone else (but you) had written it, you would not be frothing at the mouth. You just declare the author to be horrible without any basis and call teh article horrible because he wrote it.

The story wasn't about law enforcement. It was about a bill in the legislature that is being debated. There wasn't any need to say anything about law enforcement other than their input on the bill, which he did. He didn't say anything dishonorable, either.

Your last two sentences show your true colors. You say he is lucky not to be expressing opinions in China. That is true. However, this isn't China, and he was reporting facts. Your ridiculous statement that he was using "journalistic immunity" to stay out of the "slammer" is so stupid as to be hilarious. He could have said anything he wanted about the bill and stayed out of the "slammer"; this, as you noted, is not China. It appears that you wish it were China, so you could get those who disagree with you jailed. That is the mark of a small-minded hate-filled jerk.

You replied to my post several times, and this one was the most coherent reply. Your hate-filled personal attacks are free from reason, facts, and logic.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#25 Mar 23, 2011
digger wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only did he take a stand against the bill, both he AND YOU misinterpreted the entire concept of this technique of solving crimes thru the FACTUAL DATA of DNA. What you don't like about it is that it WORKS, it's FACTUAL, and you can't put up a SINGLE LOGICAL ARGUEMENT AGAINST IT because you are to stupid, too ignorant, too racist, or too inhuman. To you, as long a whitey loses his life or lifestyle, it's worth a dozen of those from the 'poor' neighborhoods'.. That's 'street justice'. So why don't people like you go cruising around Lake Minnetonka to get your 'justice'?? We all know why.
He didn't say what his opinion was. He reported on what lawmakers and those who gave testimony said. He didn't dispute the validity of the technique, which does work when there is related DNA available. He just reported facts.

Your statements about me being stupid, racist, ignorant, and inhuman are hilarious. The whose second part of your post is an ad hominem attack against me, based on nothing. It shows that you are a screaming maniac racist.

By the way, I think the bill is a good idea, but it needs the prosecutor sign-off added back in.

Have a nice racist day.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#26 Mar 23, 2011
digger wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did, if you can't see it, it isn't my problem, it's yours. Those who argued against it presented NO FACTS, plain and simple, and their reputations are not generally regarded as genuine or genius. Those who argued against it tried to destroy the CREDIBILITY of those who support it, and that was the whole purpose of the exercise.
No, he didn't. As to those opposed to the bill, they don't have to present facts. The validity of the technique is not in question. It is the effect on society and rights that is in dispute.

You could have used that argument to begin with, but it seems that attacking the author with racist rants is more important to you.

I saw nothing in the article that attacked the credibility of those supporting the bill. The purpose of the exercise, the committee hearing, was to debate public policy.
gitmo

Rochester, MN

#27 Mar 23, 2011
digger wrote:
<quoted text>
Ruben didn't research SQUAT. He just picked out stories or studies that supported his position, included them in his OPINION, and tried to state them as FACT. He TRIED to sound 'unbiased', but his bias clearly showed through, as it does whenever he writes an article regarding law enforcement procedures. Yet, from what I know, Ruben has NEVER BEEN a Law Enforcement Officer OR a LAWYER OR a JUDGE. When Ruben has gone back to SCHOOL and learned the nuts and bolts about law enforcement, state and federal law, and how the judicial system actually works, Please let me know.
He reported on the committee hearing. He doesn't need to be a law enforcement officer or a lawyer to write. That's the nice thing about the first amendment.
digger

Circle Pines, MN

#28 Mar 25, 2011
gitmo wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't say what his opinion was. He reported on what lawmakers and those who gave testimony said. He didn't dispute the validity of the technique, which does work when there is related DNA available. He just reported facts.
Your statements about me being stupid, racist, ignorant, and inhuman are hilarious. The whose second part of your post is an ad hominem attack against me, based on nothing. It shows that you are a screaming maniac racist.
By the way, I think the bill is a good idea, but it needs the prosecutor sign-off added back in.
Have a nice racist day.
The FACT that he repeated the testimony of biased lawmakers and so-called experts proves that he approves of their testimony, otherwise, he wouldn't have REPEATED IT.
DNA investigations have not only released innocent citizens, which was barely mentioned, it has nabbed countless serious criminals. It is the BEST tool that we have to nab serious criminals, and there is little that the criminals can do to defeat it. We should be using it MORE, not LESS, and I don't care what RACE the PERP IS. Even if it were a relative of mine, I would submit to a DNA test to help law enforcement nab a perp. HOW RACIST IS THAT?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Good Thunder Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Minnesota Senate nixes Sunday liquor sales Apr 17 Not so 2
News North Mankato: Dog rescued after head stuck in ... Mar 30 doctor of love 1
News Mankato Man Jailed For 3 Months On Mistaken Dru... Feb '15 Enzo49 2
Carrie Wojciak Feb '15 Biloxi Bob 1
Debate: Marijuana - Mankato, MN (Sep '10) Feb '15 MattNasty 14
Review: Sam & Abes Childcare Learning & Develo Jan '15 Disappointed 1
News ESSENCE Network: TravelNoire.com Founder On Tra... Jan '15 williewilliamajr123 1
More from around the web

Good Thunder People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]