A simple solution to this and the concerns people have for offenders' rights is to take the DNA at the time of arrest but not use it until the suspect is convicted or fails to return as required by the law. If the suspect is not convicted then the samples can be destroyed. Although many opponents of this idea state that such a procedure could undermine the practical effectiveness of the data bank by directing limited forensic lab resources away from the most serious cases, one need only look to the model of Britain's data bank to see that this is not the case. In Britain's model the DNA database covers people who have been charged with, or are suspected of committing a crime and any samples from people not convicted must be deleted. The simple fact of the matter is that criminals often commit lesser crimes - whether that be stealing to support a drug habit, assaulting a spouse or impaired driving.
Criminal recidivism is a feature of the offender profile most likely caught by DNA evidence.
It is clear that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of crimes. It is also widely recognized that one of the most frequent crimes for repeat offenders is failing to appear in court - so it only makes sense to do the DNA testing at the time of charge. Although the CPA and various victim's groups would like the Bill to be stronger by taking the samples at the time of the offence, there is a fear that such a proposal would not survive a Charter challenge. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.