Justify when you think it is and/or is not appropriate to conduct genetic testing to solve a crime?
822178
Technology is used in the field of genetics in that it is used to determine the DNA of someone and it is used to retrive the data on the databank of DNA.\n\nIt is always appropirate to conduct genetic testing to solve a crime.  Using any available resources to end crime has no downfalls.  A situation where it would be appropriate would be a rape case where there was DNA retreived from teh victim and matched the the perp\n\nDNA evidence is enough evidence to convict a person of a crime.  One reason is that DNA does not lie.  ANother reason is that everything else, including eye witness testimony, is influenced by outside factors.
980383
No its not justified and it was chose not for secuity reasons, as there are a number of other priosns available on military bases, but so that it remains out of the jurdistiction of us district and state courts for the purposes of addressing inmate grievances via Habis Corpus and 42USC 1983 claims
365282
A lot of people think this is about religion, but it's not. It's about human rights. Scientific DNA testing would prove that the fetus is: A) a human being B) a different individual than the mother (so it is NOT a part of the mother's body), and C) that it is alive. To end the life of a fetus is to end the life of a living, individual human being. A culture proves its worth by how it treats the most vulnerable people within its society. Here in America, we seem to have no trouble killing these vulnerable humans. We freak out about animal rights, but human rights are thrown in the garbage along with aborted fetuses.
104794
I often thought the same thing like why not allow death row inmates to offer their services to the public by being used in medical experiments. The degree of severoity of the medical condition would have a direct bearing on the type of crime commited.
193555
I think testing on animals often times is unethical. The end does not always justify the means to me. In fact, with some religions it all about the means. Stealing and killing are often means to a desired end, but clearly unethical.\n\nAlso I believe using a human embreyo for an ethical end but by unethicals means is wrong.
824346
Well it sounds reasonable....but could it not be proven that the insanity influenced the defendants choice not to take meds or get help, whereas is his right mind he would have?
1050037
I saw a show on thirteen world about this topic, it is very interesting. \nIt should vary from case to case. If someone found evidence of prior  hate or bad thoughts and such for the victim of the crime, they should have a some jail time, but even if they commited murder, it is  not wise to put them to jail because they were unconcious. If you can prove that they were concious that in fact changes everything. Judges should handle this with thought. I Disagree with everyone else because subconsious movement may be a sickness.
522847
This is a simple procedure, but is reserved for people who are smart enough to figure it out. \n\nIn other words, if you have to ask how to commit a crime, you're not smart enough to be a criminal.
1046771
It's not. For me, personally any type of killing is wrong. Doesn't matter what your "reasoning" is, it's wrong.
598527
against . regardless of what someone has done it is not up to me to take there life.there is no circumstance where i would accept that killing one more person was right and justified .
516569
For some states the reasoning is that children 12 and under will not understand the wrongness of their actions.  It becomes borderline for 13-15 whereas the reasoning is by 16 and above children should have a good sense of right and wrong.  This goes back to the concept of doli incapax, or incapable of mischief.  I'll agree that children can understand that the crime they commit is wrong and that's why most states have procedures for trying children as adults even very young children if it can be proven that they knew what they did was wrong.
41734
I have gone both ways on different occasions, but I think I am ultimately against it.  I don't think it is a deterrent, like if a person has the mindset necessary for committing murder, they aren't thinking of the consequences and will commit murder anyway.  Also, many people get wrongly convicted and I shudder to think how many of them were sentenced to death.
896935
This is more an ethical question than a legal one.
738601
How else are they going to know if it works or not?  I don't always agree with what is being done but would you want to use an untested product that could hurt you or a family member.  Unfortunately the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.  I will admit some of the testing is not humane but it somes times needs to be done.  \n\nAre you volunteering to take their place?
694653
There are ethics and then there are morals.  Morality is what has to do with your motive: breaking some law in order to do a greater good (say to save someone) would be moral, but unethical.  Ethics are more like a code of conduct set by society, and aren't based on 'right' and 'wrong' but rather just conventions of behavior society expects you to follow so that it can operate smoothly.\n\nGenetically engineering a mutant human race wouldn't neccessarily be unethical.  However, in my opinion it'd be immoral; any motivation to make a new species is not likely a noble one.  At best, they'd be pons for research and bizarre experiments.  Furthermore, to even consider such a task with the limited understanding of genetics that we have would be wrong (morally) b/c its certain to result in abominations and travesties.  Even clones, which aren't new species, are not the same as 'normal' organisms.  They have a shorter lifespan, and some notable defects.  There's just something about it that seems wrong to me.  We should have some limitations on what we do, at least until we understand things better.
722412
The dual utility of DNA fingerprinting for the prosecution and the defense actually surfaced at its first use in police work. In 1986, two years after the technology was invented by Alec Jeffries of Leicester University in the United Kingdom, a girl was raped and murdered several miles from Jeffries's laboratory. \n\nA suspect confessed to the crimes, but denied a previous, similar crime. A DNA test confirmed that denial -- and when the police DNA-tested evidence from the recent murder, they discovered that the suspect's DNA was similarly absent. The suspect, once confessed but twice innocent, walked free. With both crimes now unsolved, the police found a pretext to collect blood from local men and eventually found and nailed a man whose DNA appeared at both crime scenes. "It was an extraordinarily auspicious beginning...," wrote Harlan Levy, a former New York City prosecutor. "In its first known application to a murder case, DNA testing fulfilled both its promises, clearing an innocent man and helping convict a guilty one." \n\nDNA fingerprinting was a whole lot less decisive in the O.J. Simpson case: The ex-footballer walked on double murder charges, even though his blood was found in compromising situations. The jury decided that the DNA evidence was tainted by police misconduct. While the DNA was neither convincing nor convicting, the Simpson trial forever changed the legal treatment of DNA: \n\nThe procedures for collecting and processing DNA have been tightened. With the tests considered unassailable, proper handling of evidence is crucial. \n\nJudges and juries know the basic science of testing -- or at least accept its scientific validity. George Gaucys, HLA/paternity laboratory manager at the American Red Cross in Madison, Wis., says, "There's less need to testify," in the 700 or so paternity cases his lab handles each year. (DNA fingerprinting is used to prove paternity so states can prod fathers to fund their children's upbringing.) \n \nDNA fingerprinting and the databases needed to take maximum legal advantage of them do raise privacy and ethical concerns. Some observers fear any misuse of the FBI's national DNA database, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). "These are technologies in which powerful organs in society control members with less power," Philip Bereano, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told Time in 1999 (see "DNA Detectives" in the bibliography). "They are inherently violative of civil rights." CODIS went online in 1998, offering access to state data on DNA related to rape, murder and child abuse. \n\nAnd that's fine with prosecutors, who note that given the difficulty of preventing repeat crimes by sex offenders, and the gravity of rape and murder, databases are the fastest, best protection for the public. \n\nBeyond political and legal acceptance, the increasing use of DNA fingerprinting reflects the introduction of a faster, cheaper and better technique that can produce a conviction from a pin-head size drop of blood. In fact, even a few skin cells may do the trick. Says Laber, "We've had good luck with cigarette butts, stamps, envelopes, ski masks, even a hat band. If you lose a hat or an article of clothing, there's a reasonable chance" your skin cells may be found on it.
67474
NO. DNA can only be used to identify a person or being, or link to two persons/beings together. It can not PROVE a crime was committed.