VAWA Amendment Calls for Compulsory DNA Samples
---
Two Republican senators are pushing an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that would allow ubiquitous collection of DNA samples, even without a criminal conviction:
Simple. The problem is that fingerprints yield no information other than identity, while DNA yields almost limitless information about the individual from whom it's taken.
There's a noticeable streak of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling in this frightening amendment, as if all our sex crime and domestic violence woes can be airbrushed away with an omnipresent DNA database, complete with samples from the innocent.
DNA has been called the most powerful force in the universe, and is far more susceptible to abuse than, say, nuclear energy or even nuclear weapons. So why are our politicians so flippant with it?
I would argue that, given the sheer enormity of the potential to use — and abuse — DNA samples, any proposed collection of it by the government, and especially in law enforcement matters, should be subject to strict scrutiny, comparable to First Amendment infringements and race-based laws. Mandatory DNA collection should only be allowed when it serves as a necessary means to a compelling government interest, and when no non-DNA-based alternative exists.
We've gone from "We know where you live..." to "We know who you are..." Do we really need to devolve down to "We know what you are..."?
Other thoughts at Concurring Opinions.
Co-sponsored by [Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) and] Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who helped push it forward in committee, the amendment would:The argument for relaxed rules regarding DNA collection is simple: The DNA evidence is, supposedly, being gathered for a single purpose — to help aid in identifying a suspect. Since we collect fingerprints of arrestees, what's the problem with collecting DNA samples too?
--Eliminate current federal statutory restrictions that prevent an arrestee's DNA sample from being included in NDIS [National DNA Index System] as soon as he is charged in a pleading. It also requires that defendants who are not ultimately convicted "opt out" if they want their samples removed from the national database, eliminating the bureaucratic burden of tracking the progress of individual criminal cases, which discourages states from building all-arrestee databases.
--Expand the use of federal grants to allow the development of databases of arrestees as well as convicted felons.
Simple. The problem is that fingerprints yield no information other than identity, while DNA yields almost limitless information about the individual from whom it's taken.
There's a noticeable streak of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling in this frightening amendment, as if all our sex crime and domestic violence woes can be airbrushed away with an omnipresent DNA database, complete with samples from the innocent.
DNA has been called the most powerful force in the universe, and is far more susceptible to abuse than, say, nuclear energy or even nuclear weapons. So why are our politicians so flippant with it?
I would argue that, given the sheer enormity of the potential to use — and abuse — DNA samples, any proposed collection of it by the government, and especially in law enforcement matters, should be subject to strict scrutiny, comparable to First Amendment infringements and race-based laws. Mandatory DNA collection should only be allowed when it serves as a necessary means to a compelling government interest, and when no non-DNA-based alternative exists.
We've gone from "We know where you live..." to "We know who you are..." Do we really need to devolve down to "We know what you are..."?
Other thoughts at Concurring Opinions.
Related Posts (on one page):
- What Could Possibly Be Worse Than Phone Records?
- VAWA Amendment Calls for Compulsory DNA Samples
Posted by KipEsquire on
14 September 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
