Don’t DNA Me Bro!
A reader sent me a link to an article about plans in California to employ criminal DNA data in a new way.
Apparently up till now the crime lab only reported exact DNA matches to police. Under the new policy, partial matches would now be reported. These partial matches could point police to relatives of the person who’s DNA the police are trying to identify.
“For now, all the people in the state’s database are convicted offenders, but the state plans to expand the database next year to include arrestees, heightening concerns over privacy.”
When I read the article, my first thought was that this was not very different from the way other evidence is treated. If a witness to a crime saw the criminal enter a residence police would question the owner of the residence even if they didn’t match the description of the criminal. If the owner of the residence happened to be a relative of the criminal I’m sure the police would pressure them to reveal the name of the criminal. So if a relative of a criminal can be identified using DNA, why not do it?
But then I got to considering the fact that the state plans to keep records on people who were arrested but never convicted. This started to make me a little uncomfortable. I can see something like this spreading. First we keep DNA from convicted criminals, then people who were arrested, then maybe people who apply for a drivers license, eventually maybe we just collect DNA from everyone. You know, just to be safe.
Again I have to ask myself, is this a problem? But isn’t the answer to that the excuse we have heard about random drug testing and random searches, “If you don’t have anything to hide…”?
If I’ve been convicted of a crime, sure, keep my DNA on file to make sure I don’t offend again. But should my DNA be on file if I’ve never been convicted?
Adding to my concern is another article that reports that “The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.”
“That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.”
Of course the excuse for this expanded DNA collection is our safety. The article concerning the California law stated, “(State Atty. Gen. Jerry) Brown said the new approach was justified by violent crime plaguing the state.”
Well if violent crime is plaguing us then drastic measures are required to protect ourselves. We’ve been told many times that we must give up some of our civil liberties in order to allow the government to protect us.
Just how bad is it in California?
To answer that question I went to the website for the State Attorney General’s Office. There I found a “Key Facts” page with the latest crime, arrests, and population statistics.
According to the charts shown on the page violent crime has been steadily declining since the early 90’s while the population has been steadily increasing! The chart showing violent crimes by type from 1952 through 2005 shows that homicide has remained fairly level during the entire period. Assault is at about the same level as it was 30 years ago.
Is someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Are we being lead to believe that crime is soaring, when in fact we are probably safer now than we have ever been? Is this an attempt by government to infringe on our privacy by making us believe we are in danger?
Are you concerned about this? Do you think the DNA database should be expanded to include people who were never convicted? Should the police be able to access data from close relatives in attempting to solve a crime? Should the crime statistics showing crime is declining be included in articles reporting attempts to expand police power?