• No violation. DNA saves lives.

    The argument about whether or not the collection of DNA upon arrest does not violate the 4th amendment was debated in front of the Supreme Court, and on June 3, 2013, it was determined that there was no violation. Katie's Law was passed, and the law has since been adopted by 28 states. There are different types of DNA testing. The test that would be used in criminal investigations is nothing more than a fingerprint. It does not reveal the race, physical characteristics, or information regarding health, but taking DNA upon arrest would do is help law enforcement catch repeat offenders sooner. It has been proven to help prevent violent crimes and save millions of dollars in criminal justice costs. Post-conviction DNA testing has resulted in the exoneration of over 300 wrongfully accused to date. If proven innocent, they have the right to expunge their DNA from the system. Since the DNA arrestee law was passed in New Mexico over 200 cold cases have been solved, and California has reported that 50% of cold cases have been solved with post-conviction testing with over 9,000 matches made between the arrestee and crime scene evidence within 3 years. Statistics show that recidivism occurs in an estimated 70% of America's criminal population, and this type of testing is being proven to save lives. In the case of Chester Turner, a man arrested 21 times, 12 women were raped and murder. Evidence shows that if his DNA was collected at the time of arrest, 11 woman would still be alive today. This is only one example of many cases.

  • Civil liberties are completely unrelated to information gathered for security purposes.

    DNA archive, cameras in every public place ect. Have a purpose, to protect us from dysfunctional and violent fellow human beings. Privacy and protection of privacy are two different things, protection of privacy is paramount, privacy on the other hand means you're a victim of a crime and due to your and your assailants "privacy" rights, no one sees or will see what happened leading to criminals roaming free. Why would anyone have a problem with cameras all over watching everything or a human lojack to track you son if he gets kidnapped. I would personally adore a system where a branch of government know exactly where every single person within this country is and who he is, including me. Does that impair my freedom in any way??? No, I can still do whatever I did before feeling safer.

  • Yes, If they have a legit reason to be suspicious of you

    Let the definition of an arrest be when someone is taken in for a crime.
    Let the definition of a DNA test be a swab of saliva, urine sample, hair sample.
    They should be allowed to take a DNA test to confirm if you are in any way linked to the crime.
    If you know you didn't do the crime, than why wouldn't you take a DNA test to prove it, and save everyone some time?
    For example if you are caught and taken in for breaking and entering, than they should be able to take a five second or less DNA test to prove that you might be linked to another crime.
    But if you are pulled over on the side of the rode for speeding, than I fully agree that it is not necessary to take a DNA test.
    People who do greater crimes, are more likely to have done other crimes.
    People who did a simple crime, probably aren't as likely to have done other crimes. Its logic.

  • One short step

    Say the government makes a new law. This law violates the constitution, but the corrupt president picks judges ho agree with him. Now anyone unconstitutionally arrested by this law has their right to privacy taken away, and the government has their DNA. Who knows what they do with it? Share with corporations, make horrible genetic clones, whatever. Or, the government could make a law that is basically pointless, but leads to a lot of arrests (like marijuana laws, for instance). Now, anyone caught with a gram of pot, gets their DNA taken, to be used at a later time without a warrant.

  • No, just no

    This is MY life and I am really pissed off that the governments of the world get away with controlling and monitoring people's lives. No, you can't have my DNA...Why? Because I don't want to give it to you thats why. Go and build your database without my DNA. If you want to take my DNA then you will have to take it by force.

  • Violation of Civil Liberties

    This is a blatant violation of our fundamental civil liberties. Forced DNA testing and databanking directly violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the database would be highly discriminatory with between half to three-quarters of young black men having their DNA stored in the database. This is because of the higher number of arrests of black people per head of population (but not a correspondingly higher number of convictions). Moreover, access to such information is highly problematic. A government that wants to identify individuals for all the wrong reasons would only have to push a few buttons to single out people for traits they might deem undesirable (such as particular ethnicities, sexualities, or even those who have a low IQ). Also, consider the fact that New York state presently earns $50 million a year from direct marketing firms for the sale of driver's license information; imagine what these same companies would offer if they could gain access to a data bank that from birth cataloged an individual's likes and dislikes, and their infirmities. The temptation for government bureaucrats who are constantly seeking creative solutions for plugging budget deficits is too great; we cannot give them control of our DNA.

  • Absolutely not. Never.

    Police state much? What a gross invasion of privacy. Fingerprints are one thing, but DNA? I don't think so. I continue to be amazed at the amount of freedoms U.S. Citizens will relinquish in the name of "security." Public video cameras, DNA databases, government wiretaps... What's next, microchips? No thanks.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.