[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Allison W

I dunno, I can understand the comparison to fingerprinting. If you're OK with fingerprinting, DNA sampling for identification isn't far from it--it's an identifier that can be used to determine presence at the scene of a crime. I mean, is it bad for cops to be able to take and keep fingerprints?

My concern is with the ways in which basic rights are being undermined with the culture of fear the war on terrorism spurned. This ruling is just an extension of the forfeiting of rights that began under the Patriot Act.

The issues of concern, as per The Wall Street Journal highlight the following:

"Most states and the federal government authorize the taking of such samples from arrestees, and they typically are matched against a nationwide database of DNA evidence from unsolved crimes."

"The Maryland court said that because people merely arrested for crimes—in contrast to those already convicted—are entitled to a presumption of innocence, the DNA matching amounted to a fishing expedition to solve open cases. "

"Justice Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned dissent, signaling his concern by reading it aloud from the bench. He likened the DNA law to the "despised" British practice of issuing general warrants in colonial days, authorizing royal officers to conduct blanket searches of the public."

"The Fourth Amendment, he wrote, forbade general warrants by requiring that authorities demonstrate specific reasons to suspect an individual of a crime before they could search him or her. The DNA-sampling law was a suspicionless search used only to solve open cases, he wrote, calling that a worthy objective but one outweighed by the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches."

"Justice Scalia contended that because authorities already possessed the power to take DNA samples from those ultimately convicted of crimes, only people who are wrongly arrested or later acquitted will have their privacy violated."

As far as I know, people still have rights when it comes to self incrimination. We require Miranda rights to inform people of their rights. Yet it is ok for us to take their DNA to confirm their identity, and prosecute them based on this?

And, it is ok for someone who has not been convicted of a crime to have their DNA put through the DNA database of unsolved crimes so we can nail them for something else while we are at it? Is that like a secondary gain kind of thing?

I understand the rationale. However, it violates the logic of innocent before proven guilty and the rights against self incrimination.

To me, this is police state logic where the "protection of the public" is the new mantra enabling law enforcement to trample on peoples right to due process.