It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: UKTruth
No one should ever be forced to give a DNA sample just because another person accuses them of something.
The accused should have to do absolutely nothing at all.
100% of the onus is on the accuser to prove their case.
To prove their case they would have the evidence but would need the DNA
because that WAS the proof
If it turned out not to be that of the accused........retribution of sentence
for the accuser would provide mitigation?
That is why no woman (or man) should ever be believed when they claim rape. The assumption should be that they are lying until they prove otherwise.
If that was the case Bill Clinton would have got away with it in the case of
Monica Lewinsky?
originally posted by: UKTruth
Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.
Isn't it rather ironic that the 'my body, my choice' voices are all for forcing another person to yield their body for scrutiny when it suits.
really only helps those that have been the one to carry out such a thing.
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: UKTruth
Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.
Its not a fair society if the person IS guilty and gets off simply because
he refuses to provide the dna evidence that will convict him ...... However
if the dna proves he didn't do it in *fairness* the accuser should be sentenced?
That would avoid random malicious accusations.
Isn't it rather ironic that the 'my body, my choice' voices are all for forcing another person to yield their body for scrutiny when it suits.
A cotton bud swipe in the mouth is hardly *forcing another person to yield
their body for scrutiny*.......A bit melodramatic!!