Stuff From Around Arkansas, March 18
Drafty: Blogger Rett Hatcher launches the “Draft Gilbert Baker for Senate” movement. Even includes a rockin’ music video to get your blood pumping. (Run Gilbert Run)
Enough: Look, Arkansas newsguys, you can keep reporting on the progress of the lottery legislation, but I’m not going to read it or pay attention. I thought I’d made that clear. (AP)
Moneychangers: Sen. Blanche Lincoln has had it up to here with these Wall Street fat cats and their taxpayer-funded bonuses, boy howdy. (Arkansas News Bureau)
Freedom: Meanwhile, columnist David Sanders wonders, Did Vice President Joe Biden give Lincoln a “get out of jail free” card on controversial union-backed card check legislation and other Obama priorities? (Arkansas News Bureau)
Milk Run: A Senate panel OKs the dreaded and dreadful milk tax, and I rain down curses on them and their children and their children’s children. (Arkansas News Bureau)
Who Knew?: JonBenet Ramsey’s father lives in Little Rock now? Am I the only person who didn’t know that? You know, it wouldn’t be all that difficult for you guys to fill me in on these things every once in a while. (AP)
7 thoughts on “Stuff From Around Arkansas, March 18”
Ramsey was dating Natalee Holloway’s mother. Glad he is in Arkansas, I hope he makes it his home.
I just read his John Ramsey’s Bio in wikipedia. That poor man has had a rough life. Lost two daughters and a wife.
Yep, I believe that Ramsey is one of the owners of the Crown Shop gift stores here in town.
One of them is behind the Chili’s on Rodney Parham.
Seems like Beth Twitty aka Natalee Holloway’s mother and who is originally from Pine Bluff was also in Little Rock and that they were together as a couple.
I’ve heard stories about two former legislators (who had dozens of children) taking free milk from the capitol for their kids. do legislators still get free milk? wouldn’t it be hypocritical to drink free milk while increasing the cost for the rest of us?
Welcome to Little Rock, Mr. Ramsey. I’m glad you are here. I’m glad you are taking your horror and trying to make good with it. I am glad that someone like Rep. Creekmore fights for victims.
But, all that said, this bill sounds like a bad idea. Why? Simply because you are innocent until proven guilty.
Currently, you can get DNA from suspects, either through collecting it from sources left laying about as refuse or through a court order.
Obviously Rep. Creekmore knows that this is overly draconian for those who are innocent, as she has given a way for the innocent to petition for the removal of their DNA from the registry.
But if they are innocent, why should they have to do anything? When did we get to a point as a country that the innocent must request to not be instantly considered a suspect? The government has a burden of proof, if they do not meet that burden, then a person is not guilty, even if they did commit a crime. Our system is set up to protect the innocent from unjust government action, even if it does occassionaly result in a guilty person going free.
Because we are supposed to love liberty so much that we are willing to take a risk that the guilty will go unpunished. We do love justice and we demand it. But also are supposed to understand that only in a free society can justice find purchase and truly grow. If we are not free, then the system is not just. If we are collecting and storing information on people that have not committed crimes and making them work to have the information removed then we are not free.
No, I hope no victim suffers through an eternal nightmare of their victimization not being solved and the guilty go unpunished. Empathy makes me feel their pain and to cry out for justice, too. But empathy for the victims of all tyrannies in, my empathy for all those persecuted by those that rule them, makes me shudder when I think about this bill.
Support the police, give them what they need but respect the system, just as all good cops do. Professional police and prosecutors can get DNA in ways that protect the rights of the innocent. It should be left the way it is.
Don’t we currently fingerprint everyone when they’re arrested? What would be the difference between taking their fingerprints and taking their DNA other than the increased ability of law enforcement to track down bad guys?
You leave your fingerprints every where you go. You don’t expect your finger prints to be private. Fingerprints are like your physical description, you have no expectation to privacy in them, they are naturally out there for the world to inspect.
On the other hand, we don’t leave our DNA everywhere we go (and if you are, you probably do need to be arrested). In order to get your DNA, they have to go through a complex process to get it. In short, you have an expectation to privacy in that. It is medical information, it is private.
One is an identifier based upon your physical appearance, one is an identifier based upon an intrusive medical procedure. One is public, one is private.