Compulsory Inclusion of Non-Felons' DNA by any Government Database is Just

Many thanks to missmozart for her impressive opening round. This is a unique topic that I have never done before and had to do some extensive reading on. I always love a good challenge where I am learning about a new issue. Let's begin.I. DNA Databases are Not EffectiveA. DNA is useless for most crimesThe main problem with using DNA databases is that they are useless for most crimes. Tania Simoncelli notes:"DNA is often not left or found at the scene of a property crime. To look for DNA where it is not obviously present requires painstaking painstaking and costly crime scene investigation, during which forensic technicians scour the scene looking for trace evidence that may or may not carry the DNA of the perpetrator. Moreover, DNA found in these situations may not be of sufficient quality and quantity to permit testing. According to the Chief of Investigation of the Denver Police Department, only eight percent of all burglaries can be investigated using DNA gathered from a crime scene." [1] B. False AccusationsDNA is not infallible and is subject to errors. Consequently, having a national DNA database puts innocent people at risk for false accusations and wrongful convictions. Dr. Harry Levine et al. note [2]: "Contrary to what many believe, DNA evidence is not infallible. Knowledgeable observers and insiders have pointed out that errors occasionally appear even in the best laboratories and quite often in others. Problems include: mixing up and cross-contamination of DNA samples; the considerable judgment and misjudgment involved in DNA analysis; and biases in interpretation, which tend to favor the prosecution. As the size and number of DNA databases expand, so too does the potential for error and abuse. Some have argued that innocent people should not care that their DNA is in the criminal justice databases. If they are not guilty, it is said, they will have no problems. We recommend that legislators who claim the DNA databases are free from error - and who advocate including DNA from misdemeanor arrests, neighborhood sweeps, or familial searches - should be encouraged to put their own DNA and that of their immediate family members into the databases. Most are unlikely to do so because being in the DNA databases does indeed put one at risk of being falsely accused and even convicted of serious crimes. It is also revealing that police departments and police unions fiercely oppose putting police officers' DNA in the databases.Despite the technical errors and errors of interpretation, DNA databases are now being used, and will be used ever more in the future, to identify suspects and to convict people. As a result, Black and Latino teenagers and young people who are disproportionately and unjustly arrested for marijuana possession and other misdemeanors are also disproportionally at higher risk of being falsely suspected, accused and even convicted of more serious crimes - and so are their genetically similar relatives." William Thompson similarly notes notes [3]:"DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases. The risk of false incrimination is borne primarily by individuals whose profiles are included in government databases (and perhaps by their relatives). Because there are racial, ethnic and class disparities in the composition of databases, the risk of false incrimination will fall disproportionately on members of the included groups. And this leads us to the next point. Because everyone will be entered in the DNA database, what is stopping criminals from taking advantage of this to throw off investigators? Indeed, Simconellia writes [1]:"DNA databases create an extraordinary resource of forensic evidence. Criminals will undoubtedly attempt to make use of this resource by obtaining and planting at a crime scene what is apparently unimpeachable evidence that someone else committed the crime. The more inclusive the database, the greater the resource, and the more likely such incidents will result in false accusations and false incriminations. The imprimatur of certainty that is attached to DNA makes this problem all the more worrisome. Faced with DNA evidence, an investigator may not look for the real perpetrator or may overlook other important evidence. Taking these concerns together, we could be looking at a whole new class of miscarriages of justice should DNA databases continue to expand, unheeded."2. The Presumption of Innocence and Protection Against Unreasonable Search Among the mantras of democracy and just government is the assumption of innocence and the protection against unreasonable seaches and seizures. These legal rights apply to everyone, regardless of past convictions or not. A DNA database that includes everybody would violate such assumption of innocence. Consequently, it would also violate the right to protection against unreasonable searches. Simoncelli and Krimsky write [4] "The trend to collect and bank the DNA from innocent persons including newborns, schoolchildren, suspects and arrestees is highly problematic. First, it marks a fundamental shift in the purpose and intent of what have been termed “criminal” databanks. The routine trawling of these databases by law enforcement renders the people whose personal data are included as suspects for any and all future crimes even though they have not actually been deemed suspects by any method. Requiring persons convicted of a crime to forfeit certain rights of bodily integrity and privacy while under authority of the penal system has been ruled defensible. However, subjecting those who have never been suspected of a crime, let alone convicted of one, to this treatment potentially undermines the presumption of innocence. Adding the DNA data from millions of innocent persons to these databanks alters their purpose from one of criminal investigation to population surveillance, subverting our deepest notions of a free and autonomous citizenry." Because it potentially violates the presumption of innocence, it also violates the right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Simoncelli and Krimsky continue: "Law enforcement’s use of these tools to search, profile and store the DNA of those who have not been convicted of a crime, without a court order or individualized suspicion, has already exceeded reasonable constitutional protections. In particular, a number of new genetic techniques and practices are providing law enforcement unprecedented access into the private lives of innocent persons by way of their own genetic data." The conduct of a "search" requires probable cause and a warrant, or at the very least reasonable suspicion. DNA testing absolutely qualifies as a "search." [5] If there is no reason to conduct such a search, then the search is unjustified. Indeed, as Justice Utter of the Washington Supreme Court states [6]: "We would be appalled, I hope, if the State mandated non-consensual blood tests of the public at large for purposes of developing a comprehensive... DNA databank. The Fourth Amendment guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures would mean little indeed if it did not protect citizens from such oppressive government behavior." 3. Costs and LogisticsBuilding and maintaining such a database would be very costly. Simoncelli notes [1]: "The actual per sample costs of testing are difficult to estimate. A conservative estimate of $50 per sample indicates that to test the entire population of arrested individuals in the United States would cost $670 million per year. This estimate represents only the costs of DNA collection and profile generation, and does not reflect the infrastructure costs that would be associated with hiring and training additional laboratory and administrative personnel, purchasing equipment to meet increased testing capacity demands, and expanding laboratory space. In addition, while some people are arrested more than once, we do not have a system in place that would prevent duplicate collection and testing. To develop that capacity would require significant." Money spent on DNA databases is money not spent on other law enforcement programs. The money and time spent building a database would be better spent elsewhere. Conclusion Establishment of a national DNA database is unjust because it is ineffective and an unjustified invasion of privacy. Requiring everyone to submit DNA tests violates the assumption of innocence and unreasonable searches and seizures.I will begin rebuttals in the next round! I am out of characters.____________Sources: http://www.debate.org...;