Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Not sure what to think.

I don't feel real sorry for this guy.  He's been arrested for selling drugs, and one of the women he's slept with claims him as her babydaddy.  The judge on his case has ordered him to provide a DNA swab for a paternity test, and here's where it gets sticky: he's refused.  And so, the judge has ordered that he has to remain available to give one at all times during his incarceration until he complies.  That involves keeping him cuffed and in a shared holding cell under the courthouse for ten hours a day, every day.  He's whining that he's got sores and cuts from being cuffed for so long, and complaining that being crammed in a 12'x16' cell with five or six others and no sunshine is cruel and unusual punishment. 

On the one hand...the guy's obviously a creep, and is going to prison anyway.  I won't speak about how wrong the reasons are* but he knew that his actions were illegal, and chose to do them anyway.  Apparently, he's done other illegal things, and is concerned that his DNA will be added to a database, and used to convict him of his other crimes.

And that leads us to the other issue: the fourth and fifth amendments.  You know, the ones where you're supposed to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure in your person, home, and papers, and supposed to have the right not to incriminate yourself?  The ones that have been battered by the NSA et. al.?

He's got the right to refuse.  I suppose the judge has the right to hand down the orders that he's been giving that have made the guy so horribly uncomfortable, or the guy's lawyer would be raising holy hell and pointing fingers.

I see both sides of the issue.  If the guy doesn't want to provide DNA, maybe he ought to just acknowledge the kid his, whether it is or not. 

*The War on Drugs is just this generation's attempt at Prohibition...with the exact same results in the rise of organized crime.  Unfortunately, this time, Congress decided to shit on the Constitution with regards to due process and search and seizure, which means that it's not going to be repealed any time soon, since it's profitable this time.


  1. I agree that there's no good answer here. If he's done crimes that might get linked to him by his DNA, compelling him to provide it might cause him to incriminate himself.

    Then again, he's been convicted already, and when you've been convicted, some things become out of your control.

    Quite a conundrum.

    1. The way I read it, he'd been arrested, not convicted.