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

I'm sure it will be very interesting for both of us. My opponent and I have agreed that the Burden of Proof in this debate is shared. Italicised words: quoting my opponentUnderlined words: directly quoting from a named sourceI now begin with my opening arguments. ___CrimeThe principal purpose of a DNA database in any country is to aid in solving and preventing crimes. As of now, most countries only include the genetic information of felons' DNA on their database, ie. only people who have been convicted of a crime. In this debate, I will prove why this should be expanded to the entire population rather than only a minority. The compulsory inclusion of non-felons' DNA in a government database will help to accurately and quickly solve crimes and has already proven to do so. In the UK alone, the National DNA Database helps to identify a suspect in 60% of criminal cases [1]. Almost 8% of the UK's population have their DNA on this database, both felons and non-felons of all ages and ethnicities [1]. It is quite clear from this that a DNA database is indeed very successful in solving crimes. If the inclusion of everybody's DNA in the database is made compulsory, I am confident to say that there will definitely be a much higher increase in the percentage of solving crimes from the information given above. In cases of doubt on the uniqueness of an individual's DNA, the chances of having the same DNA as someone else, for example finger prints is about one in a billion [2]. Secondly, a DNA database for the entire population has proven to be much more effective than any other alternative methods we have today. The current alternative methods used by police forces all over the world include one of the most used eye-witness testimonies. There are many disadvantages to this method and I am going to briefly describe a few. The first and most obvious one is that one's memory especially from a situation where there was an overwhelming feeling of fear or anxiety, cannot be fully trusted. A story is told differently each time and memories can be affected in this way. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it [3]. The second disadvantage of an eye witness testimony is that we will automatically go for discriminatory dragnets based on the already unreliable evidence. While bias is obviously negative, it can easily occur. Well-intentioned officers who err may do so not as a result of intentional discrimination, but because they have what has been proffered as widespread human biases [4]. A DNA database however, could easily solve the issue of discrimination and I will be discussing this further later. Human Rights It is believed by some people that having a DNA database for non-felons 'violates people's rights' but this has already been thoroughly considered by various organisations etc. The establishment of the Forensic Genetics Policy Initiative for example has worked on helping human rights for DNA databases worldwide [5]:The project aims to build global civil society's capacities to engage in the policy-making processes on the development of national and international DNA databases and cross-border sharing of forensic information and to protect human rights by setting international standards for DNA databases [5]. In most countries, for example the US, all new-born babies go through a screening test which involves testing a few drops of the baby's blood to ensure that it is healthy and that no disorders/diseases are present [6]. This is definitely not 'invading their privacy' as the main intention of the test is for the best interests of the baby. The same theory can be applied to having a DNA database. Although a DNA database may be considered 'an invasion of privacy' at times, it is definitely just when taking the entire population's security into account rather than only a few mere individuals. DiscriminationI briefly touched on this earlier in the crime section. The problem with having a felon-only database is that first of all, it only includes a minority of the overall population. Therefore, if DNA is unmatched, a police force will have no choice but to search unconvicted people. This can lead to bias as I explained earlier and also as a result, searching in limited areas. Suspected subjects will be asked for their DNA sample and to be searched, and even if they refuse, it will be taken from them forcefully by warrants. This is definitely unjust and furthermore, quite ineffective compared to a DNA database that includes non-felons. The police as a result will begin to lose credibility among the people as using forceful methods such as warrants is definitely an 'invasion of privacy'. A DNA database will also have long-term advantages regarding discrimination as it will help to diminish some current bias relating to racism, classism and even sexism. Therefore, not only does a DNA database reduce the discrimination of the police, but also future discrimination of a country as crimes are punished fairly. JusticeThe main point of the resolution is whether a DNA database is just and I believe that it definitely is. A DNA database will most importantly, improve our justice system as more felons are discovered and convicted of crimes. It is just because instead of asking for individuals for DNA samples, everybody is analysed equally and judged fairly. Finally, to reiterate, the most essential duty of a country's government is to protect all of its people. With a DNA database, although individual rights may be affected, the entire population as a result will have benefitted. Therefore, for the sake of a country, a DNA database is just and that is the most important aspect in this debate. ConclusionThe compulsory inclusion of non-felons' DNA by any government database is just because it helps the entire population in relation to crimes and has already proven to be an extremely effective way of reducing and solving crime. We will never have a perfect justice system but the most important thing we have to do is to constantly strive for perfection and to continuously improve what we already have. Thank you for reading and I beg you to oppose. Citations:[1] . http://www.yourgenome.org...[2] . http://dnafingerprinting19.tripod.com...[3] . https://agora.stanford.edu...[4] . http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...[5] . https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org...[6] . http://www.babysfirsttest.org...