FBI May Collect Kids DNA
DNA profiles from hundreds of thousands of juvenile offenders and adults arrested but not convicted of crimes could be added to the FBI's national DNA crime-fighting program under a proposed law moving through Congress.
The law, if enacted, would be the greatest single expansion of the federal government's power to collect and use DNA since the FBI's national database was created in 1992. The FBI says its national DNA database holds genetic profiles from about 1.4 million adults convicted of state and federal crimes.
The changes, in a little-noticed section of a bill that would authorize $755 million for DNA testing, were approved by the House of Representatives on Nov. 5. Backers say the Senate is likely to approve a similar version by early next year.
The American Civil Liberties Union counters that DNA is different because it contains genetic information that should be kept private. Taking a person's DNA before he is even convicted, said ACLU Washington lobbyist Jesselyn McCurdy, "removes the presumption of innocence."
Advocates for juveniles say that giving teenagers what amounts to a "permanent criminal genetic record" defeats the purpose of the juvenile justice system by treating the youths as adults.
"It runs counter to the tenets of juvenile court, which is toward confidentiality and giving a child another opportunity to turn around," said Nancy Gannon of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, which advises state governments on justice policy.
Get the rest of the article from the USA Today.
Matt's Chat
I was almost sold on this being a bad idea until I saw that the ACLU had a published their stance as being against it. That got me thinking a bit more... The ACLU thinks that by adding additional information to the FBI's database that somehow the presumption of innocence is somehow lost. That could not be further from the truth. When was the last time you heard of an employer asking the FBI to check to see if a prospective employee's finger prints were on file? From the law enforcement perspective, how is DNA different from finger prints? I've not heard an argument that convinces me. I think what disturbs the ACLU is that crimes might actually get solved.Mark's Remarks
I normally do not agree with the ACLU, but I think in this case I might just have to. If people are not convicted of a crime, why do we need to have their DNA? On the surface, this looks like a great idea, but think about what happens if someone in the law enforcement community has an issue....it raises all sorts of issues about complications over presumption of guilt, etc. While I think we should take the DNA, etc. from conivcted offenders, I am not so sure about those arrested...I mean, extrapolate this. The security guard from the Atlanta Olympics who was used as a scapegoat by Clinton and Reno, er, I mean questioned by Clinton and Reno, we take his DNA? Why? Especially when even though he was arrested but not convicted. I think it needs to be further fleshed out, but I must offer a differing view than my colleague.
