State Lawmakers Propose Mandatory DNA Samples

MothBalls · 10-21-09, 08:50 AM

My $0.02

If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection)

If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes.

I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused. It opens up the potential for abuse, potentially charging someone just to get the sample.

@AVG I think what Sky is talking about is the potential abuse by corporations if they could get their hands on the data. A good example, a medical insurance company could screen the DNA and see they are a high cancer risk and deny coverage based on that. I don't think anyone outside of law enforcement should ever have access to any of the information just for this reason. He made a good point though, if it exists, only a matter of time before the corporations find a way to get the data.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

10-21-09, 08:50 AM	#5
MothBalls Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,012 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	My $0.02 If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection) If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes. I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused. It opens up the potential for abuse, potentially charging someone just to get the sample. @AVG I think what Sky is talking about is the potential abuse by corporations if they could get their hands on the data. A good example, a medical insurance company could screen the DNA and see they are a high cancer risk and deny coverage based on that. I don't think anyone outside of law enforcement should ever have access to any of the information just for this reason. He made a good point though, if it exists, only a matter of time before the corporations find a way to get the data.