Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government create a DNA database for better police enforcement?
Results so far:
| Yes | 59% | 52 votes | Total: 88 votes | |
| No | 41% | 36 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe biggest impediment to natural justice in the 21st century is blatant abuse of civil rights in the sense that criminals enjoy more rights and protection than victims of a crime. The burden of proof in a criminal proceeding now requires presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and it is this very concept that often allows manipulation of the system to advantage a person attempting to defeat a charge. DNA is one incontrovertible and decisive method of establishing beyond any doubt the guilt or innocence of a person facing the criminal justice system.
Most systems of Western law evolved out of a barbaric medieval system where severe punishment was commonplace for what we would today consider as trivial misdemeanours such as stealing a loaf of bread or even just being unable to repay a debit. Ordinary people charged with a crime now have a system designed to provide natural justice with protection enshrined under constitutional laws, and with advances in modern investigative techniques, particularly in the area of forensic science, it is now relatively easy to establish the facts of a situation.
The discovery and use of fingerprints in the late 19th century was a significant step towards improving the system of criminal investigations, and this advance enabled one important fact to be established beyond contestation the presence or otherwise of an accused person at a given crime scene. No system is perfect and of course there are also many valid reasons for a given person's fingerprints to be found at a scene however this method offered a simple means to eliminate the obvious. As a tool used in isolation and without any context, fingerprints alone are (and always were) insufficient without the additional requirements of establishing motive, intent, and of course alibi.
DNA is perhaps the ultimate human fingerprint' in that the smallest sample is sufficient to establish the unique personal sequence of an individual. In cases of rape and murder in particular, fingerprints and testimony are sometimes insufficient to bring the perpetrator to justice. DNA on the other hand is a conclusive absolute that when handled correctly will verify or otherwise establish the facts of a case.
Civil rights activists claim to act with altruistic aims and intent yet they are sometimes the bane of our modern society. In a structured society where laws are enacted to protect the innocent and govern the conduct of business and pleasure, it is important to establish boundaries that limit the power of those in a position to enforce and administer justice. Civil rights are limitations of control over our personal lives, and are an important part of the freedom we all enjoy that defines a democratic society yet with this freedom comes considerable responsibility.
Too many civil rights activists totally disregard any requirement for responsibility and seem to be undermining the institutions that protect the innocent with their extreme and over-developed sense of paranoia. Most arguments relate to intrusion of privacy however too much privacy invites trouble as we seem to discover well after the fact!
The presumption of innocence is something that should be considered inviolate however in order for criminal investigators to be effective and accurate, certain freedoms and liberties (within reason) need to be suspended for the purposes of elimination, and DNA is now perhaps the most effective elimination available. A national DNA database should most certainly be established however with one vital requirement the removal of the DNA record upon establishing the innocence of a person under investigation. Having established guilt beyond doubt, the person charged should have no recourse in arguing for having his or her DNA removed from the database. In this way the incentive not to re-offend is greatly enhanced by the knowledge of an almost certain detection thanks to the record on file.
Learn more about this author, Ian Loft.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The thought of the government creating a DNA database to help the police do their job might be comforting to some. With DNA it would seem that all things seem possible. Match DNA found at a crime scene with the database and simply arrest the culprit. It sounds great, doesn't it?
There are a number of questions that need to be addressed with regard to a DNA database. Who is going to be in the database? Who is going to make the decision? Do we put only convicted criminals in the database? What about someone who is arrested and then released? Should all criminals be in the database or just those who have committed certain offenses? What about people convicted of drunk driving? People with parking tickets? Maybe we should have a mass "DNAing" of the entire populous.
I know I don't to be responsible for making any of those decisions. Are you the one with the Wisdom of Solomon? Do you have the deductive reasoning power of Sherlock Holmes? Maybe you have the kind of God-like powers most of mere mortals don't have.
The last thing I want is for the government to do a mass "DNAing of society because I don't want to be included in anyone's DNA database.
There are those of you, who will say, and you always do, if you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about. The problem is that statement is rather glib. It has nothing whatsoever to do with innocence.
I haven't had so much as a parking ticket in the last 25 years and the government doe not deserve my DNA. I don't trust them will my tax dollars but I have no choice in that. For the time being I have a choice with DNA and there is still the chance of stopping the government from collecting my spit.
Are you aware of what DNA is capable of? If the government has it potentially the insurance companies could get it to determine if you have some genetic disease that hasn't developed that and they could use that to deny you health insurance. Maybe someone might decide to clone you or tamper with your DNA and the DNA of others and create some kind of Frankenstein's monster. What about the future possibilities of DNA and what might become of it? No one knows what the future will hold for DNA and I for one do not want to be apart of that nonsense.
Also, we are quickly losing our identity as individuals and this is another step toward a mass identity. There might not be any individuals any longer but groups as determined by their DNA.
Our bodily fluids and DNA are our own, short of a court order but even that is wrong. Just keep your hands off my DNA, it's not for public consumption.
Learn more about this author, R.A. Scott.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Justice System
- Should the U.S. Senate confirm Sonia Sotomayor as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court?
- Should a felony conviction automatically prevent someone from obtaining employment?
- Is the death penalty just or unjust?
- The state should force the mentally ill into treatment even if they are not an "imminent threat" to themselves or others
- Should prisoners receive sex-change surgery at taxpayers' expense?
