"It's the right thing to do, and then, as you well know, John, this is where the national registry becomes so important, making sure that, not only are we getting these DNA tests done state by state, but then, nationally, everybody's talking to each other. That's how we make sure that we continue to tighten the grip around folks who have perpetrated these crimes."
It's a great sentiment. The problem is, that when it comes to DNA testing upon arrest, it's wrong. In the interview John Walsh says that it's no different that taking fingerprints or an arrest photo. But that is not true.
DNA samples, unlike fingerprints, don't just identify you. They have the potential to reveal health issues, genetic relationships (siblings, parents), and possibly potential behaviors. You may give up the right to protect this information if you are convicted, but to take it upon arrest flies in the face of "guilty until proven innocent." Requiring DNA sample of people who have been arrested, but not indicted, let alone convicted, says the exact opposite. It assumes you are guilty until the DNA sample proves you innocent. That is not the way justice is served in the U.S.
See the portion of the interview that talks about DNA (about halfway through on Youtube.
See the entire interview on amw.com
I love how the libs are still saying we aren't being forced into a socialist country. Have a good day fellow comrades.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting issue, to be sure. I too would prefer DNA collection on conviction rather than arrest.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, like fingerprints, DNA is left more or less beyond our control all the time. Hair, nails, skin all contain DNA. DNA does contain more information about us, but it's just another artifact of us going about our business. That is, collecting it is noninvasive.
At the present time DNA is a good identifier, but in the (probably not too distant) future, it will be piss poor, exactly because it's so easy to harvest. Fingernail clippings, shed hair, accidental scratch, all give a DNA sample.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, biometric data is going to be limited use for ID verification. Once the first database containing biometric data is breached, biometric data will be useless. If your password is compromised you can change it. If your fingerprints are compromised, you're hosed.
ID verification is a different goal than evidence gathering, I believe. A fingerprint or skin flake can put you at the scene of a crime.
ReplyDeleteUsing biometric data for computer passwords has never been a good idea. However, it is a good idea as an extra verification step, like what we have in place at the Lubbock County Jail when prisoners are released.
As the public becomes more knowledgeable about how DNA can be used - both what it is used for, and how it is used - you will begin to see people framed using DNA. It's not hard to gather, and unlike fingerprints can be picked up and moved. Hair is especially vulnerable to this type of thing. I don't know that it will ever be really common, but it will happen, and will throw doubt on other DNA used for evidence. I can see a Lifetime movie using other DNA evidence for a frameup.
ReplyDelete