Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on State's Evidence

1

This would make England proud.

Posted by laterite | February 26, 2008 4:57 PM
2

This would make Germany proud.

The one that was around from 1933 to 1945 that is.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 26, 2008 5:53 PM
3

Under current law, when someone is convicted of a felony, they are required to be fingerprinted and to provide a DNA sample. As I said in my comment to the last post on this, Assault 4 is definitely the farest-reaching offense of this bill. It seems bizarre that people convicted of these misdemeanors would be required to provide a DNA sample, but not be fingerprinted (obviously if they're booked, they would have been printed).

Posted by Gidge | February 26, 2008 6:14 PM
4

How many men's DNA could they collect from the mouth of one prostitute?

Posted by Rain Monkey | February 27, 2008 8:49 AM
5

I can see it now. Once passed, collection would begin at "charged with a crime" - not "convicted."

Posted by Anna Montana | February 27, 2008 1:27 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).