The last few weeks I’ve been busy researching California’s ballot initiatives for this November’s election. It’s my job to prepare an analysis and recommendation on these initiatives for CRI’s board. Since (for better or worse) I tend to quickly have strong opinions on policy issues, I haven’t had much difficulty figuring out whether the various initiatives should be opposed or supported. But there’s one exception: Prop 69. If you are really bored and want to give your opinion, I’d love to hear it. (Of course, I’m sure I can already guess Mark’s opinion.) ;-)
Current law in California requires DNA samples to be taken from anyone convicted of a serious felony. The DNA is then stored in a database and used to help solve future crimes. Prop 69 would mandate the collection of DNA samples from anyone who is arrested for any felony. My immediate reaction was that this seems like a complete invasion of privacy. What’s more “private” than a person’s DNA? And I don’t like the idea that innocent people’s DNA would be sitting in a master database along with the DNA of convicted murderers and rapists. Apparently there are 50,000 people arrested every year in California who are never charged with a crime. Prop 69 could also require your DNA to be placed in the master database even if all you did was write a bad check or trespass (technically considered a felonies). The worst part about Prop 69 is that a person who is not convicted (either because charges were dropped or they were proved innocent at trial) cannot appeal a decision that refuses to remove their DNA from the database. The decision of the lower court is final.
Arguments in favor of Prop 69: 31 other states, including Virginia, already have similar databases. Although Virginia has a population 1/3 the size of California, it has more than doubled California’s record in solving crimes through DNA technology. Probably the strongest and best argument in favor of Prop 69 is that the DNA samples collected will provide only non-genetic identification markers (i.e., the DNA collected won’t give genetic or other personal data and will only be used to identify someone). Because of this, the DNA samples collected would be virtually identical to the old-fashioned fingerprints that have been required at criminal bookings for nearly 100 years and used to confirm a person’s identity. The only difference is that the DNA is 100% more accurate and is easily digitized. Under Prop 69, DNA would be collected in a non-invasive manner using a simple mouth-swab.
I think that privacy rights are very important. I also think that it’s essential to support law enforcement and help prevent crime. When these two convictions clash, the question becomes which is more important. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't see much difference between fingerprinting and DNA information. Substantively, if it's not invasive and helps track down true criminals, I'm for it. Pragmatically, I'm for it only if we can do it without borrowing money to pay for it.
Deep waters! I think, overall, I'd vote against Prop 69 just because it's too complex to be good law. (That's what happens when the citizen legislature runs rampant and starts writing laws! How Oregonian!) It seems like it introduces too many sweeping changes at once. First, the redefinition from 'serious' felony (and I assume it's properly circumscribed under current law?) to any felony. I certainly have less of a problem with intruding upon the privacy of a murderer or rapist than a mere trespasser or check bouncer - such dastardly crimes against humanity require the forfeiture of certain rights. (That's why we photograph criminals, whether they like it or not. It may be considered an invasion of privacy under normal circumstances, but they are no longer entitled to that kind of privacy.) Second, there's the issue of changing the rules to include anyone merely accused of a crime. Very unfair to the innocent bystanders. I actually think I have less of a problem with this point, because as you point out, there's nothing terribly incriminating with just having your DNA on file - it can't hurt you unless you're planning to try to get away with a crime down the road. (On the other hand again, one's personal information IS nobody's business and I DID have a problem when the DMV required my thumbprint to get a driver's license down in GA! Very confusing.) Finally, and most tellingly of all, is the prohibition against appeal. Why this? It's far too final and irrevocable.
So that's my easy cop-out - it's a bad law because it's sloppy and democratic (meaning it was written by the people and not by the people's representatives) and too complex. =)
But it's still an interesting conundrum - individual rights v. the Greater Good. Which shall prevail?
~Rose
I haven't thought about this all that much, but I think Rose's analysis makes sense. I would be hesitant to vote for this initiative because it makes too many changes at once, but I personally think the idea is a good one. The "no appeal" policy is quite problematic, though; that's my major objection, I think. --DJ
Post a Comment