From the New York Times --
Op-Ed Contributor Caught Up in DNA's Growing Web by Harlan Levy <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/opinion/17levy.html?ex=1300251600&en=f87e0 2b26e708399&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss> THE announcement this week that DNA from a paroled violent felon working as a bouncer matches that found on plastic ties used to bind a murdered graduate student highlights DNA's power to implicate people already in state databases. Fifteen years ago, as a Manhattan homicide prosecutor, I was an aggressive proponent of taking DNA from convicted murderers, rapists and other violent felons so we could catch them when they committed crimes again. I even quit my day job to write a book likening the identification of criminals through DNA to the voice of God speaking on earth. I still firmly believe in the power of DNA to catch the guilty and exonerate the innocent. This week's developments seem likely to vindicate that faith again. But for all this technology's promise, proposals by some to extend DNA databanks far beyond convicted felons, and even to the general population, go too far. In the early 1990's, state legislatures did what many early proponents of DNA urged: they passed laws to take DNA from those convicted of murder, rape and other violent felonies. Then they enacted laws to take DNA from most convicted felons. Misdemeanor sex crimes were next, a logical, intelligent measure. But the proposed next steps in DNA collection were more problematic. In 1998, New York City's police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed that DNA be taken from all arrestees. And Gov. George Pataki has sought to take DNA from people convicted of any misdemeanor, without proof that such offenders are more likely than the general population to commit violent felonies or sex crimes (the kinds of offenses where DNA evidence is most useful). And the buzz today among prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers is that proposals to take DNA from the entire population are next. What, if anything, is wrong with this picture? DNA databanks do help apprehend dangerous criminals (and thereby prevent crime). But most people aren't violent criminals and never will be, so putting their DNA on file exposes them to risks that they otherwise wouldn't face. First, the people who collect and analyze DNA can make mistakes (witness the Houston Police Department Laboratory, whose slapdash DNA procedures led to at least one wrongful conviction). Second, people can be framed by the police, a rival or an angry spouse. Third, DNA is all about context; there may be innocent reasons for a person's DNA to be at a crime scene, but the police are not always so understanding. Indeed, with a universal national DNA databank, innocent people may be embroiled in criminal investigations when their DNA (a single hair or spot of saliva on a drinking glass) appears in a public or private place where they had every right to be. Even if we get past those objections (do you trust the government with your DNA on file?), the practical barriers to universal collection loom larger still. In a nation with no institutionalized national identification cards, photo files or fingerprinting, just imagine requiring all citizens and residents to report to the local registry for DNA collection. So the advocates of universal testing will urge the collection of DNA at birth. Aside from the atmospherics of registering newborns (don't you know that children are our future ... criminals), rapid technological advances suggest that we will not be using the same methods to analyze and store DNA results 20 years from now, when those grown babies begin committing crimes. [snip] Weblog at: http://weblog.warpspeed.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]