They also made sure they had prior police assurances that the DNA samples would be destroyed once the case was solved. The innocent need have no concerns about this rapidly advancing technology, argues Napper. You can't do anything with a DNA sample other than identify the person who left it. The more people on a DNA database, the better. Those who commit high-volume crimes, such as simple burglary, should be included on the database, not just the serious offenders, as recommended by the model legislation, he says.
All big crooks start out as little crooks.
If you can interrupt this early enough, you can reduce crime. Napper cautions the Australian states still developing legislation that if they make it too hard for police to collect DNA samples, or laws vary too much between states, then the national database will not be very effective. He also argues against the model bill's premise that a DNA mouth swab should be regarded as an intimate sample, requiring a person's consent. The procedure is a quick and simple wipe. So will the requirement in the model bill that people be videoed giving permission for sampling, as well as during the actual collection of blood or mouth swab.