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

Thank you ThinkBig! To prevent any confusion (since your argument consisted of many cited passages from sources):italicised words: quoting my opponentunderlined words: directly quoting a named source*italicised and underlined words*: quoting my opponent's sources___Before I begin, I would like to remind everyone that the principal issue of this debate is whether a national DNA database is just or unjust. Rebuttals1. DNA databases are not effective:"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"To reiterate, the UK currently has the world's largest national DNA database and it helps to identify a suspect in 60% of criminal cases [1]. The undeniable success of the UK's national database has proven that it is indeed very useful for solving criminal cases effectively. When I say that a DNA database is essential in aiding police forces to solve crime, I am obviously not implying that it should be wholly relied on. Of course other methods must be applied too in order to guarantee accuracy but since a DNA database has clearly proven effective, it is definitely a useful tool to aid in investigations when appropriate. ”only eight percent of all burglaries can be investigated using DNA gathered from a crime scene”A felon-only DNA database only includes a minority of the population and the sad fact is that criminals are born each day. Therefore, in the 8% of burglary cases where DNA is found, many cannot be traced because as I stated, criminals represent only a small percentage of the entire population, even if they are more likely to commit a crime. Also, burglaries are not the only type of crime. Homicides, kidnapping and rape among others are also cases where a DNA database could prove very useful when there is no other evidence or method. "DNA is not infallible and is subject to errors. Consequently, having a national DNA database puts innocent people at risk for false accusations..."I am well aware of that fact. As Confucius once said: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." In other words, do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. I'm sure we've all heard of this saying before. As I stated earlier, our justice system is not perfect and will never ever be perfect or be in a state that everyone can agree on. I also explained in the previous round how our current alternative methods (such as the eye-witness testimony) are not completely accurate either. Having a national DNA database that includes non-felons would be a huge step forward in improving the security of our society despite the fact that it may not be always 100% accurate. The fact that it is not completely accurate is well-known and will obviously be considered at all times. Think about it, if not having or using a DNA database means that we should use even worse and less accurate methods, then what is the point? Everyday criminals are getting better and more sophisticated, I think it is about time that the police force should too. "It is also revealing that police departments and police unions fiercely oppose putting police officers' DNA in the databases.”I don't really know why this has been bolded by my opponent but I will respond nevertheless. Felon or non-felon, police or not, everybody should have their DNA in the government database regardless. Every single individual should be analysed equally and judged fairly because that is what I call 'just' and what this debate is all about. "DNA databases (...) will be used ever more in the future..."This only proves that DNA databases are good.”...As a result, Black and Latino teenagers (...) are also disproportionally at higher risk of being falsely suspected, accused and even convicted of more serious crimes."Unfortunately, I am slightly confused. I don't really understand why people of specific ethnicities will have a higher chance of being falsley accused simply because DNA databases will be more used in the future. I would be very grateful if my opponent would explain this to me in the next round to clear everything up!"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"As I explained earlier, all of this will be obviously considered by forensic investigators. DNA testing should be used as an important tool and not the basis or main purpose of an investigation. __2. The Presumption of Innocence and Protection Against Unreasonable Search"A DNA database that includes everybody would violate such assumption 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. As citizens, I believe that it should be our duty to our country to give our DNA in order to benefit the entire population. My motion is that we should implement compulsory DNA extraction from citizens from birth. "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."In my previous argument, 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". __3. Costs and LogisticsYour main points in this section were that implementing a DNA database would be very expensive. Firstly, let's summarise the basic advantages of having a DNA database. 1. Less criminals loose as more people are being convicted This itself is saving tremendous money as less people/organisations such as banks are being robbed etc.2. Less people will become criminals due to the improvement of police resources (ie. DNA database)This will mean obviously that money will be saved from prison inmate costs, security etc. and money can be then used to fund things such as the DNA database and most importantly, any other important issues in a country (eg. education). DNA can be easily extracted from new-born babies via the screening test (explained in Round 2) for blood samples as well as saliva and skin cells using perhaps an adhesive patch or other. Another way to help launch a DNA database is for everybody to contribute some money (100 euro for example). Like I mentioned earlier, my motion is to implement this for new-born babies in order to ensure that it can be slowly built up rather than an entire country's population at once.ConclusionAs you can see, a compulsory DNA database that includes non-felons is definitely just and would be an effective way not only to improve a country's justice system, but the entire country as a whole. Thank you for reading!Citations:[1] http://www.yourgenome.org...(same link as Round 2)