Mandatory DNA Collection for Criminals?

southsiderosie

The New York City District Attorney wrote an op-ed in today's New York Times advocating for the collection of DNA samples from criminals, even those who committed misdemeanors. An excerpt:

Today, however, we are hamstrung by a law that does not authorize the collection of DNA following convictions of certain misdemeanors. This has meant that we can’t use DNA technology in more than half of our cases. By expanding the collection of DNA to include those convicted of all crimes in New York State’s penal law, as Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has called for, we will be better able to identify the guilty, exonerate the innocent, bring justice to crime victims and prevent additional crimes from occurring.

In 2006, lawmakers decided to include some but not all misdemeanors in the DNA databank. Opponents questioned why someone convicted of a low-level misdemeanor — petty larceny, for example — should be required to provide a DNA sample. The answer can be found in the results of that decision: samples collected from people convicted of petty larceny have been linked to roughly 48 murders and 220 sexual assaults. Clearly, the 2006 expansion of the DNA program — which passed with only six dissenting votes in the State Assembly — confirmed that collecting samples from offenders convicted of minor crimes helps solve and prevent more serious crimes.

I have to say, I am pretty uncomfortable with this idea. Should a kid who stole a bag of potato chips have a sample of his DNA taken, put on file, and kept until all eternity? Is there no clause for a statute of limitations? And where does this end - DNA samples for those who have been arrested? For those who live in high-crime areas, or who fit the profile of someone likely to commit a crime?

The only somewhat appealing argument I can see for this is that it can assist in establishing innocence - the number of wrongly convicted criminals on death row in the US, particularly in minority communities, is staggering.

Am I just being paranoid here? What do other people think?

Mr.Micro

When DNA evidence was introduced several years ago, it was a massive break through in crime detection. Old crimes have been solved since as well, ones dating back 20 years or more with the advancement of new techniques. So its a boon for crime detection etc on the plus side. However, DNA evidence is not infallible. It can be planted, a scene can be contaminated, low copy DNA is unreliable etc, so just because the authorities have a data base of DNA it is only good if the system used is whiter than white in integrity and application. I do not agree with taking DNA for misdemeanours or minor crimes, and DNA alone should not be enough to convict, if not corroborated with other evidence, IMO.

audidiesel

i see absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. it can be used to establish innocence or proove guilt. but then again id have no bother with a national identification card with figerprints and photographs either.

wont ever happen here though as civil rights groups will halt it.

Guy:Incognito

If everybodys DNA was on file from birth it would make solving a lot of crimes much easier. Just saying.

Ellis Dee

Provided it is backed up by sufficient infrastructure to scan all DNA traces found at crime scenes and that effective laws are in place to ensure DNA-related data are not misused for purposes other than solving crimes, I can't see why the DNA profile of not only every criminal, but also of every citizen should not be kept in a national database. It could begin with taking a sample of the DNA of every baby born, of everyone receiving a social security number, driving licence, passport, and so on. People who do not commit crimes need not worry that their DNA will be found at crime scenes.:)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sure why not just remove the need for warrants for police to search your home or the right to an attorney when you're being questioned, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear

goose2005

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If everybodys DNA was on file from birth it would make solving a lot of crimes much easier. Just saying.

Because, as we know, all police officers are totally trustworthy and would never falsify evidence.

Going Forward

audidiesel wrote: »

i see absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. it can be used to establish innocence or proove guilt. but then again id have no bother with a national identification card with figerprints and photographs either.

wont ever happen here though as civil rights groups will halt it.

I agree with the concept, but would need convincing regarding the secure "management" of such a confidential and uniquely personal database.

Going Forward

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If everybodys DNA was on file from birth it would make solving a lot of crimes much easier. Just saying.

Dont think it would be possible to do at the moment politically speaking though, too much negativity to other new charges etc.

Would probably cut down on the thefts from oil tanks too!!

al28283

Next you'll want us all to be registered at birth

leeroybrown

al28283 wrote: »

Next you'll want us all to be registered at birth

I've a relative who already argues for this (in a sentence he begins with "I'm all for civil liberties but...").

leeroybrown

Also, you can look closer to home for an example of DNA collection. The UK was the first country to introduce a Police DNA database back in the mid 90's and probably have more than five million people's DNA on file at this stage. They store a set of sequences that can be used to identify a person's DNA from another sample.

Anyone arrested in the UK is sampled and gets added. Anyone who isn't convicted is supposed to be able to have their DNA removed but the UK Police have been extremely unwilling to facilitate this as they want as large a database as possible. One person went so far as making a successful EHCR action to get their DNA removed.

al28283

leeroybrown wrote: »

I've a relative who already argues for this (in a sentence he begins with "I'm all for civil liberties but...").

:rolleyes: Children are already registered at birth.

leeroybrown

al28283 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Children are already registered at birth.

You'll find that I and everyone else are referring to a DNA registry...

al28283

leeroybrown wrote: »

You'll find that I and everyone else are referring to a DNA registry...

I didn't mention DNA

leeroybrown

al28283 wrote: »

I didn't mention DNA

Indeed you didn't.

lividduck

Simple yes. We keep their fingerprints on record and we keep their photo on record so why not their DNA profile