tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post7881847693965036152..comments2024-01-27T00:27:45.851+00:00Comments on race/history/evolution notes: Why it's wrong to catch criminals using the DNA profiles of their convicted felon relativesn/ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-82040203023629781642010-07-16T19:33:38.948+01:002010-07-16T19:33:38.948+01:00The biggest immediate concern is that familial sea...<i>The biggest immediate concern is that familial searches are racially discriminatory. African-Americans represent about 13 percent of the United States population but 40 percent of the people convicted of felonies every year.</i><br /><br />This is analogous to the argument that enforcing US immigration laws is discriminatory because latinos make up the majority of illegal im<br />migrants.<br /><br />It takes a clear pattern of wrongdoing and inverts it, transforming it into wrongdoing on the part of anyone who notices the pattern of wrongdoing.Tanstaaflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809764986911255031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-17563744014776603152010-07-15T23:50:54.309+01:002010-07-15T23:50:54.309+01:00"Though I do appreciate how Rosen ends the ar..."Though I do appreciate how Rosen ends the article. I certainly do agree with limiting testing to convicts and not all arrestees"<br /><br />It's worse than that. As far as I can tell, Rosen is fine with the government storing DNA samples of all arrestees. He's saying the expansion of DNA databases to include all arrestees could be put in jeopardy if states insist on searching familial DNA of convicted felons (and therefore familial searches must not be allowed).n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-34717332472797648562010-07-15T19:43:10.411+01:002010-07-15T19:43:10.411+01:00"Can't they both lose?"
I'm tor..."Can't they both lose?"<br /><br />I'm torn. I'd like to oppose familial genetic searches on general principles of privacy. And even a slight risk of a false positive is a real problem given how much respect juries give to scientific-sounding testimony and "1 in a million" confidence that really isn't.<br /><br />But if the polity does embrace familial searches, disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination. It may simply be evidence of disproportionate involvement in crime.<br /><br />In the case the article leads with, authorities caught a <i>suspected serial killer</i>. And the author is agonizing over "discrimination" because more blacks are caught in crimes? If, just IF, blacks actually do commit even slightly more crimes (for whatever reason, even social or economic) than their proportion of the general population, any effective law enforcement tool or policy is going to show a disparate impact. In which case, eliminating "discrimination" in the liberal meaning requires leaving certain criminals on the street to keep the proportions right. Brilliant.<br /><br />Though I do appreciate how Rosen ends the article. I certainly do agree with limiting testing to convicts and not all arrestees, and only using the database to solve major and violent crimes, not minor ones.Dave R.noreply@blogger.com