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

CrimeMy opponent argues that a national DNA database would be a deterrent to crime and help solve crime. While it is true that DNA is extremely valuable in solving crime, bigger is not always better. A bigger DNA database would mean larger backlogs. Consequently, justice is often delayed. Emily Witt et al. write (1): "At least 350,000 DNA samples from murder and rape cases remain untested, according to the federal government's best estimates. The story behind the DNA sample backlog — and the uptick in sample collection that is partially responsible — is one that we've been exploring for months, with investigations published in partnership with Politico, the Los Angeles Times and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund. There's no one cause for the surge in untested samples. But in May we detailed how much of it can be traced to new federal and state laws requiring DNA samples from people convicted of — or simply arrested for — nonviolent crimes, including shoplifting. Because of these laws, underfunded and understaffed crime labs are now flooded with DNA samples."Indeed, as Dr. Samuel Baechtel writes (2): "Personally I cannot imagine doing DNA typing on every person who is arrested or even every person who is indicted. People that suggest these things have probably not been near their local crime laboratory in a long time. We have our hands full just handling cases going to trial and getting the evidence out there to either exclude or include someone " Indeed, when California expanded its DNA database to include all felons, the results were a 10-fold expansion in the database and a quadruple in the backlog. (3) Indeed, in her book, Debra Wilson notes (4):"While calls for a universal database are emotionally or intuitively appealing to society (and are likely intended to be so) this needs to be carefully considered before being implemented. It must be asked whether the calls for a universal database are because there is a genuine belief in such a database's ability to substantially reduce crime, or because this is an effective way to highlight a flawed system. The potential ethical, social, and resource issue argue persuasively against universality, particularly when it is considered that the potential benefits may not be significant." So in conclusion, while DNA is certainly useful in solving crimes, it also leads to dangerous backlogs that delay justice and delay cases. The cons far outweigh the pros.Human Rights Pro writes "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. 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."There is a fundamental difference between a DNA test on infants for diseases and genetic disords versus taking DNA and storing it in a database for future crimes. Simoncelli notes (3): "DNA data banks pose a number of significant individual privacy concerns in addition to those directly implicated by the Fourth Amendment. Unlike finger-prints -- two-dimensional representations of the physical attributes of our fingertips that can only be used for identification -- DNA samples can provide insights into personal family relationships, disease predisposition, physical attributes, and ancestry. Such information could be used in sinister ways and may include things the person herself does not wish to know. Repeated claims that human behaviors such as aggression, substance addiction, criminal tendency, and sexual orientation can be explained by genetics render law enforcement databases especially prone to abuse."Derek Regensburger furhter notes (5): "Civil Libertarians have thus characterized the creation of DNA databases as the computerized equivalent of an Orwellian Big Brother. They support DNA testing only in limited circumstances - as an investigatory tool when supported by probable cause and a warrant or as a means for convicted offenders to prove their innocence. Moreover, these critics allege that the state should not be able to indefinitely retain the DNA samples once collected because such permanent storage would substantially increase the risk that private medical information will be used for improper purposes." I would contend that after an infant is given a DNA test, that DNA should be immediately distroyed for privacy reasons, unless consented to by the parents. The ACLU writes (6):"[I]n all other cases, informed consent is required. This includes retaining newborn blood spots after completion of the screen and research use of the samples by states and third parties. Proceeding with such uses in the absence of express, informed consent is not only improper, but also risks undermining the public trust and goodwill upon which newborn screening programs depend."DiscriminationAs noted in the previous round, DNA is not always effective as not all crime scenes leave DNA evidence. Helen Wallace notes (7):"DNA fingerprinting has undoubtedly become a useful tool in criminal investigations. However, it is important to distinguish between the role of DNA samples in a specific criminal investigation and the role of DNA databases in general. Databases are not required to provide evidence of guilt or innocence when there is a known group of suspects for a crime; a DNA sample can be taken from each individual and the DNA profile—a string of numbers based on specific areas of each individual's DNA—can be compared directly with the profile of a DNA sample from the crime scene. Provided the analysis avoids any errors, there is little cause for concern in using DNA samples in this way and there are significant benefits to criminal investigations. In practice, these comparisons are made using the database, by entering both the profile from the crime scene and the suspect's profile. However, looking for a DNA match among a known group of suspects for a specific crime does not require a database and, in particular, does not require DNA profiles to be retained after an investigation has been completed.""[T]he number of cases that can be solved using DNA analysis will always be limited by the number of crime scenes from which DNA profiles can be collected and the need for corroborating evidence. The number of such profiles loaded into the NDNAD has increased significantly during the DNA Expansion Programme, particularly from scenes of volume crime, such as burglaries. However, in 2003/2004, the number of crimes yielding DNA either levelled off or decreased, depending on the type, indicating that the increase in the number of profiles might be at an end. It is unlikely that it will be possible to obtain DNA profiles from more than 1% of crime scenes for several reasons. For example, many types of crime do not have an obvious scene, DNA is simply not left at many crime scenes and not all DNA samples yield useable profiles. In theory, if everyone's profiles were in the NDNAD, the DNA match rate—the number of DNA matches per crime-scene sample—could increase to 100%. However, the DNA-detection rate or conviction rate would never be this high, because not all matches will lead to detections or convictions. A 50% detection rate could be achievable, compared with 40% today, leading, perhaps, to DNA detections for 0.5% of crimes. Yet given that the detection rate has not noticeably increased and a 50% DNA-detection rate might be difficult to reach, there seems to be a rapidly diminishing return from adding more individuals to the NDNAD" Furthermore, there is always the risk of false positives. Thompson notes:"People have been prosecuted based on cold hits to partial profiles. Defendants in cold-hit cases often face a difficult dilemma. In order to explain to the jury that the incriminating DNA match arose from a database search... Courts in some cold-hit cases have, at the urging of defense counsel, opted to leave the jury in the dark about the database search in order to avoid the implication of a criminal record. Jurors are told about the DNA match, but are not told how the match was discovered. The danger of this strategy is that jurors may underestimate the probability of a false incrimination because they assume the authorities must have had good reason to test the defendant's DNA in the first place. In other words, jurors may mistakenly assume the DNA test compared the crime scene sample to the DNA of a single individual who was already the focus of suspicion. ConclusionThe compulsory inclusion of non-felons' DNA by any government database is unjust because of the risk of false positives. Furthermore, a universal DNA database causes an unnecessary burden on the labs and causes backlogs.Out of characters. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...;