AG Schimel bumbling, Delays DNA testing...again!!!

Even before he had a chance to get reelected, and after downplaying how badly he botched the backlog of rape kits to be tested, AG Brad Schimel is again falling way behind testing DNA crime evidence, delaying those cases and impeding investigations. So are Republican voters paying attention? JS: 

A backlog of months-old DNA evidence has continued to grow to nearly 800 cases. Attorney General Brad Schimel, who oversees the state crime labs, released new figures Friday about the tests, about four weeks after USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin requested them under open records laws.

Schimel faced criticism from his opponent, Democrat Josh Kaul, over crime lab delays. 

When the Republican entered office in 2015, DNA evidence rarely took more than two months to test. Now, about half of all DNA tests take at least two months and hundreds of cases typically take more than three months — potentially slowing police investigations or court cases that rely on DNA.

Here's an interactive graph tracking Schimel bumbling:

Big Government Republicans to collect DNA samples of Wisconsinites for possible future use, but oppose DNA data for public health policy.

Any privacy concerns warranted under our big government Republican DNA screening process for supposed lawbreakers?

Yes, Republicans want to keep a DNA record of you, to be used for whatever reason in the future.

jsonline: The state Department of Justice has hired nearly 20 more workers … so that it will be able to handle … additional DNA samples when new collection requirements take effect next year … expects to receive 25,000 samples from felony arrests and 40,000 samples from misdemeanor convictions next year.

DNA samples from anyone convicted of a felony and certain sex-related misdemeanors. A Republican-backed law dramatically expands the grounds for collection … requires anyone convicted of any misdemeanor to submit a DNA sample. Civil rights advocates, though, contend the expanded collection is an invasion of privacy. 

Welcome to “small government” Republican values folks, and the invasive nature of their controlling “authority.”

The Upside Down World of Conservatism: So what could explain the objections to a similar collection of DNA samples used to treat newborns and guide public health policy?

jsonline: A major bill that supports newborn screening nationwide has stalled in Congress because some Republican senators have privacy concerns about genetic research funded by the legislation. Blood is collected on a card that is sent to state public health labs for testing, in order to identify conditions that are often easily treatable. The cards are often later used anonymously for research. It's unclear which specific research is causing concern, although the Senate committee has said research on DNA has allowed people to be re-identified, even though initially they were anonymous.

Is it the “less we know” Republican way of doing things?

Samples are used for quality assurance testing, to help refine cutoff levels for identifying specific disorders, as well as many other studies on various public health issues. 

So in this case, Republicans are worried about the future use of DNA samples? My head is hurting. Yet they’re not worried about the use of DNA samples of adults who commit a minor legal infraction?

No wonder conservatives don’t know which way is up anymore and just vote along party lines.

Isn't DNA confidential Medical Information? Supreme Court Decision Chips away at Constitution.

Taking someone’s DNA and holding onto it should be illegal, unless that person has committed a crime. DNA should be considered private medical information.

It’s nothing like a finger print or facial image. Maybe later they can clone the individuals and develop a nameless army of assassins made up of genetically lawless jaywalkers and speeders. Bloomberg:

FELDMAN: …Or why we should worry about the Fourth Amendment. “If DNA sampling was actually like fingerprinting, this argument might be convincing. But of course it isn’t. Fingerprints are a phenotype that reveals nothing except a random pattern that no two individuals share. DNA, however, is your genotype: the blueprint for your entire physical person. If the government has my fingerprints, it’s like they have my randomly assigned Social Security number. If it has my DNA, it’s like they have the entire operating system.” Noah Feldman in Bloomberg.

Police State Near: AG Van Hollen to fund DNA Collection of Citizens by short changing Schools, Prisons, Public Defenders.....

Our conservative one party authority will, in the next 2 years, be hell bent on the radicalization of our state government.

While the public is clearly against putting guns in schools, Republicans are dead set on arming teachers anyway, a movement most likely lead in Wisconsin by longtime proponent Sen. Frank Lasee. While we don't want to create a data base for guns, we're just fine starting one for those arrested Wisconsinites who may not be found guilty after all.

And that brings me to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s outrageous budget request to fund DNA sampling. It's a complete 180 on civil liberties.

Back in April of this year, our one party law enforcer started to appreciate his new found power:

Van Hollen backed a plan to take DNA samples from people when they are arrested for felonies, instead of when they are convicted. The two Republicans gave their support to the bill 2½ years after Van Hollen raised reservations about a similar proposal when it was touted by Jim Doyle, the Democrat who was then serving as governor. At that time, Van Hollen said he was concerned about the expense of the proposal and its effect on civil liberties ... whether the further erosion of civil liberties - which any law creates - are worth the return of public safety. 

Stacy Harbaugh, speaking for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said her group opposes the measure because those who are not convicted of crimes would have to give up DNA, which includes detailed information about their health. "We could be filling our databank full of very private information from potentially innocent people," she said.

She also noted minorities in Wisconsin have disproportionate contact with law enforcement. "Will the DNA databank be about promoting justice or will it have a racial bias?" she said.

Ya think? If this is how he wants to pad his resume of a run for governor, then we’re in real trouble.:

The massive cost from our tight wad managers of taxpayer money?:

The DOJ has determined the measure would cost $6.4 million in its first year and $4.1 million a year thereafter … The State Crime Laboratory analyzes about 8,500 DNA samples from convicted felons a year. The department estimates that figure would balloon to 104,000 samples the first year after it became law. The bill allows those arrested but not convicted to have their DNA profiles expunged from the state's databank. The department thinks thousands of people would ask for that, contributing to the higher costs. 

Here's where we're getting all that soon to be wasted money: 

WKOW: The state's Justice Department wants to shift millions of dollars from schools, prisons, gang diversion programs and public defenders to pay for DNA collection and fund services for sexual assault victims.

It would mean the Department of Public Instruction would lose $3.7 million for alcohol and other drug abuse programs. Prisons would lose $4.1 million for guard training. The Office of Justice Assistance would lose $1.7 million for youth gang diversion programs and public defenders would lose $253,800 for training.

And so will fall away other incredibly important safe guards and programs instituted over time that have made life better in Wisconsin. I don’t even want to get into changes to the electoral college here.

Walker convinces Van Hollen on DNA samples; Trust us, we’re Republicans. What could go wrong?

Under a Democratic governor, J.B. Van Hollen opposed DNA sampling of felony arrests for a multitude of reasons. All those reasons disappeared, magically, when the Republicans took control of the iron fist of government in Wisconsin.

jsonline: Gov. Scott Walker and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen backed a plan Monday to take DNA samples from people when they are arrested for felonies, instead of when they are convicted … 2½ years after Van Hollen raised reservations about a similar proposal when it was touted by Jim Doyle, the Democrat who was then serving as governor.

Even more surreal; there’s an actual group advocating DNA sampling of Americans at the point of arrest, and not just after convictions, called DNA Saves. They claim citizens will “feel” safer when such laws are passed.  

"Wisconsin needs to be the 26th state," said Jayann Sepich, a co-founder of the group.

I can't wait? I don’t know if you’ve been keeping track, but the Walker administration is dramatically expanding what will now be considered a felony violation, for instance; shoplifters stealing anything over $500 (once $2500) will now be treated as felons. You can thank the raving lunatic of the Assembly, Joel Kleefisch for that one.

So the cost to taxpayers will go through the roof, right? Yes, but in the upside down world of conservatism, it could possibly save money:

The two Republicans acknowledged it would have upfront costs but said it would ultimately save money because the program would identify some suspects more quickly. The 2009 bill to take DNA at arrest would have cost $6.4 million in its first year and $4.1 million a year thereafter (samples taken from all felony arrests, which is not the current Walker plan, maybe).

Back then, Van Hollen worried about the constitutionality of DNA sampling. But since then, Republicans have shown they can be trusted more than Democrats with a new DNA data base of innocent citizens.

"Part of the reason why I'm reserved on the bill is because I, like many people, do realize that there comes a point where we cross a line," he said then. "As we start to collect DNA samples from more and more individuals under more circumstances, you come closer to that line."

Hell, once we get first offense drunk driving listed as a felony, who knows what law will be next.