Why isn’t dna collected when people die? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of unsolved crimes?

[Anonymous]

Why isn’t dna collected during autopsy? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of mystery crimes where dna is found but not identified to a person because that person has never committed a crime before?

[Anonymous]

According to the US Constitution the government needs a warrant based on specific facts that implicate someone as a criminal before it is legal to execute a search. That’s why your idea is a non starter.

[Anonymous]

Privacy.

[Anonymous]

I’ll play - collect it at birth or at other biometric appointments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t dna collected during autopsy? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of mystery crimes where dna is found but not identified to a person because that person has never committed a crime before?

If my DNA is found at a crime scene, am I guilty?

[Anonymous]

Because that’s not how DNA works

[Anonymous]

You watch too much television.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t dna collected during autopsy? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of mystery crimes where dna is found but not identified to a person because that person has never committed a crime before?

If my DNA is found at a crime scene, am I guilty?

Why was your skin or blood under the victim’s fingernails? Under what circumstances was that a commonplace occurrence for you both?

[Anonymous]

Op again.

For example, if every deceased person had a DNA profile available for comparison, investigators could potentially identify suspects who died before they were ever arrested or convicted. There have been numerous cold cases solved after comparing crime scene DNA to DNA obtained from a deceased suspect’s even forensic genealogy has solved cases recently.

[Anonymous]

Great use, however unconstitutional. Next

[Anonymous]

19:00 answered your question. It’s unconstitutional. Your idea is a nonstarter.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

[Anonymous]

A tangential issue. There are warehouses full of rape kits with evidence that hasn't been tested for DNA matches. That's tens of thousands of American women who, unlike the majority of rape victims, came forward and endured the collection of evidence from their bodies. But because of lack of funding -- or just plain prosecutorial priority -- their cases go unsolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has a mid-aughts understanding of how DNA works. DNA science has evolved to the point where we can detect small amounts of DNA on basically everything. You are constantly leaving your DNA on surfaces, so the presence of a person's DNA at the scene of a crime isn't necessarily probative of anything.

I used to prosecute gun cases and we routinely DNA tested the guns. I can't recall a single instance where there was only one person's DNA on the gun. It was always a mixture.

Couldn't you just arrest them all and charge them all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

For example, if every deceased person had a DNA profile available for comparison, investigators could potentially identify suspects who died before they were ever arrested or convicted. There have been numerous cold cases solved after comparing crime scene DNA to DNA obtained from a deceased suspect’s even forensic genealogy has solved cases recently.

Did we try the deceased suspect in court or just provide a summary judgment so the police could close the case and feel good about eventually "solving" the crime?