DNA from tens of thousands of suspected illegal immigrants, captives in the war on terrorism and others who have been arrested but not convicted of federal crimes could be added to a national database of convicts' DNA under a proposal the Senate is likely to vote on soon...
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a sponsor of the bill, says collecting DNA from arrestees would help authorities catch rapists and killers who have arrest records but who go undetected by the DNA system because they have no serious convictions. Barry Steinhardt, who specializes in privacy law for the American Civil Liberties Union, says taking DNA from people who “haven't been found guilty of anything” is wrong. “We've got to ask ourselves whether this is a line we want to cross.”
Monday, October 03, 2005
unreasonable search and seizure
As much harm as the ACLU has done to the foundations of this country, they do occasionally get something right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I personally don't really see a sampling of DNA as an invasion of privacy, at least not any more than taking my picture.
How 'bout this Sackofcatfood:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To me, it`s self explanitory.
There are words such as "shall not deny", and "liberty" and "due process of law" that cause me to have a BIG problem with Mr. Kyl's bill.
Also, I will point out as a legal point, a person is his (or her) own "property", not the State or Federal governments, and can win on that point alone.
There are words such as "shall not deny", and "liberty" and "due process of law" that cause me to have a BIG problem with Mr. Kyl's bill.
What liberty are you being denied? And how is taking a DNA sample pre-trial any more an abridgement of due process than arresting a suspect pre-trial?
Further, what good do you think DNA evidence will do *at all* if we aren't allowed to examine people against the database before they've been found guilty? That would render this powerful forensics tool completely useless. People worried about the results would simply refuse to cooperate with the test.
Also, I will point out as a legal point, a person is his (or her) own "property", not the State or Federal governments, and can win on that point alone.
1.) Does that mean we can't imprison people until after they've been tried, and further, cannot detain them to try them?
2.) If I cut myself on a police cruiser and blead, can I sue for loss of property?
3.) Should police not be able to confiscate guns of suspects until they've been tried?
As a worst case scenario, to circumvent your notions about property, the police could simply scavenge the back of the control car and the handcuffs and the jail cell for bits of DNA people shed naturally. I don't see what the point is in making it harder for them. If the police can have a mugshot, name, fingerprints of an arrestee, I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't have DNA also.
I can see the merits of both arguments. I think the main point is not that this one specific law "crosses the line", but that it is another example of government bureacuracy continuing to erode the rights of individuals. If the "right to privacy" can be twisted to excuse the murder of the unborn, then it should easily be able to protect individuals from having their DNA extracted.
Just a couple of minor points about both sides:
The phrase "due process of law" has been diluted down so that it can have any meaning the bureaucrats want, just like the "interstate commerce clause".
Those last examples of "mugshot, name, (and) fingerprints" differ from DNA in one respect: DNA requires the removal of a small portion of the person, while the former three items are naturally accessible from outside the person.
Post a Comment