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

You've been a superb opponent and have shown excellent conduct throughout this debate. Due to an ongoing sicknesss, I may not be able to respond to every point. I am scheduled to have surgery in two weeks.1. DNA Databases are IneffectiveFalse AccusationsPro quote mines my source. Pro writes:"DNA databases (. .. ) will be used ever more in the future. .. "This only proves that DNA databases are good. Here is the source in its entirety: 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. " The keywords here is the beginning phrase in which I highlighted. Furthermore, this debate is not about whether or not DNA databases are good. Rather, it is about whether or not expanding databases to the entire population is just. Pro seemed to be rather confused about the last part of the source. Often times during a DNA database search, they will also do a familial search. This is basically a search in a DNA database for genetic information indicating a relative of a person they are seeking to identify. (1) "Because people of color are disproportionately stopped, searched and arrested, they will disproportionately bear the burden of this genetic dragnet. And because DNA samples can be used to establish family relationships, it has the potential to widen the surveillance to entire communities. " (2) Criminal ManipulationPro effectively concedes this point. 2. Presumption of Innocence"Nobody is innocent or guilty until it is proven, just as Schrodinger's cat is neither dead or alive until the box is opened. However, I can see where your point is coming from. Therefore, I propose that felons' and non-felons' DNA should be kept in different sections and the felons' database should always be searched first to minimise any wrong claims. (. .. ) My motion is that we should implement compulsory DNA extraction from citizens from birth. " Pro seems to misunderstand the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof rests solely upon the prosecution, not the defense, to prove that you committed a particular crime. If I were to accuse missmozart for murder, it would be my sole burden of proof to prove that she committed the murder. Until I prove that she is guilty, for all legal purposes, she is not guilty and should be considered to be entirely innocent of the said crime. DNA databases not only undermine that innocence, but also shifts the burden of proof. Forensics DNA writes (3): "Expanding DNA databases to include many persons who have merely been arrested represents a significant shift in which the line between guilty and innocent is becoming blurred. It undermines the presumption of innocence by treating people who have merely been arrested as somehow less innocent than others who have not been convicted of any offence. DNA databases also shift the burden of proof because people with records on them may be required to prove their innocence if a match occurs between their DNA profile and a crime scene DNA profile at some point in the future. " Pro's proposal to create two separate databases for felons and non-felons does little to affirm the assumption of innocnece, nor would it be effective in protecting them from false accusations. "I explained that without a DNA database, the police would have to use discriminatory dragnets such as searching and forceful warrants. In a case of a DNA database, no discrimination is involved and time is saved in searching innocent people. Furthermore, if your DNA matched one found in a crime scene, then there is very "reasonable suspicion". "Indeed, without a national DNA database, the police absolutely would have to use forceful warrants. This protects the innocent from being searched without cause and without a warrant.3. CostI am rather confused as to pro's rebuttal to my arguments. Conclusion (1) DNA databases are faulty (2) Criminals can easily manipulate DNA to throw off detectives (3) DNA databases are a poor investment and extremely costly. (4) DNA databases violate the fundamental right to the assumption of innocence and is an unwarranted search. (5) Privacy will always be a concern. The compulsory inclusion of non-felon's DNA by any government database is certainly and without a doubt, unjust because of all of the reasons mentioned above. Once again, thank you for a phenomenal debate! I urge a vote for con! Sources1. . http://criminal.findlaw.com...;2. ht. https://www.thenation.com...;3. . http://dnapolicyinitiative.org...;