The DNA Collection Act

Maryland’s DNA Collection Act allows police to take genetic material from people who have been arrested but not yet convicted. The law has caused much controversy as people argue for the leads that could be obtained by the collection of DNA, as well as the privacy of a person’s genetic material. The law is currently in effect though it is facing contemplation through the Maryland v. King (12A48) case where justices are deciding whether or not to extend the law after its expiration which will be at the end of next year.

The law was enacted with the motives of identifying dead bodies in a way that other methods failed, and preventing more crimes such as terrorist attacks, murders, and rapes. The Act includes that officers submit the DNA collected from suspicious people into a national or international databank which would be available to healthcare providers.

DNA has proven to have great evidential power in the solving of specific crimes. The collection law would ease the jobs of investigators and provide what could be a definitive answer to some cases. While it doesn’t solve all crimes, it can offer clues that may lead people to other crimes as well as reduce the number of wrongful convictions.

The law faces opposition from people who believe that the DNA databases have limitations that trump its positive aspects. Those who argue against the act reason that advancing crime-fighting strategies would take care of the job better than DNA collection. A recent Department of Criminal Justice Services document even shows that a broad expansion of DNA collection would offer diminishing returns. People argue that the law doesn’t have enough of an effect to remain in action.

Others are worried about the accessibility that people would have to their activity in DNA databases. The database could be available to health insurers that could use it to deny coverage or claims. Humiliation is also a factor as medical records would be on the database.

Despite all of the concerns against the law, I think that the DNA Collection Act should stay. Though it is nearing the line on privacy and civil rights, the law could enforce the rights of people in situations with higher stakes. The database could provide answers in trials, and tip the scale on a person’s verdict. An FBI study even indicated that DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in roughly 25% of sexual assault cases since 1989. The law could dramatically change the lives of people who need evidence, and it could help put away criminals who would likely do harm in the future.

This system is current in Britain, which was the first nation to legalize DNA collection. It’s been reported that the database exposes approximately 2,000 crimes a week. By keeping the law, we could save a great amount of people from future crimes as well as help those wrongly convicted.

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/65420.aspx

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D8163FF935A25757C0A9609C8B63

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090104/119294260.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/scotus-dna-law/index.html?hpt=us_c2

In response to the immigration law

In Bianca Tamez's political blog, she addresses Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070. According to this law, police officials can stop people on the streets and ask for identification if they have reason to believe that the person may be in the states illegally. This law has caused many debates as people question exactly what factors trigger officials to suspect certain people.

People have considered this law a step backwards into history, where racial profiling was more of a problem than it is today. Police officials have commented on these accusations by saying that they will not tolerate racial profiling or discrimination; they'll focus on resources on violent criminals and property crimes. While I'd like to believe this, I just don't have enough faith in the reflexive thoughts that people express in the presence of other races. I don't think we're at a point yet where we see everyone as equal and won't jump to conclusions.


By passing this law, Arizona takes away some of the freedom of its citizens. People are now bound by law to show their identification to the police if asked. I find that I agree with Bianca's take on the situation, that this law further limits the freedoms that American citizens are entitled to. Those who worked hard to get into this country and earn citizenship should be given equal treatment despite their skin color or ethnicity. It would be a shame to find that America and the liberty that it promises is an exaggeration.


For now, I think that we should tighten the border security even more. This option many even work more effectively than SB 1070, as law-enforcement agencies across Arizona unanimously viewed that the law would do little to change their daily duties.

This law, if even effective, falsely represents America and the rights of its citizens.Those who live here or worked hard to get here legally should be free to live without the invasion of police who didn't do their job at the border.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/10/20120610law-enforcement-ready-move-forward-senate-bill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/sb1070-ruling-supreme-court_n_1614119.html

My take on abortion

About 3,700 people get abortions every day in the United States. Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, I think we can all agree that this number is too high. Some of us believe that this number shouldn’t exist; that the choice for abortions should be illegal. Those pro-life argue that abortion is unethical and murderous. However, these 3,700 abortions are not murders if done safe. In the first few weeks of pregnancy, there is no brain in the fetus. A person needs a brain to be a person. Our brains are the headquarters of our entire beings. Without a brain, we are not people. Therefore, a fetus, in the period where abortion is an option, is not a person yet. It’s the truth. Scientifically speaking, early abortion is not murder.

We should not argue on whether or not abortion should be legal. It is a right. We should all have the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies. With the fact that a pregnant woman does not harbor a home for a person but rather a not-quite-human embryo during her first seven weeks of pregnancy, we can safely say that what we do to our bodies, within the first seven weeks of pregnancy, is our right.

Still, we could do without it. We could do without the statistic that approximately one-third of women will have at least one abortion before age 45. It’s unsettling that so many people choose abortion. That 18 percent of all abortions are from teenage pregnancies and that 42 percent of abortions are accounted for by women who have incomes below the national poverty level.

We can’t get rid of abortion. That would be taking away a huge freedom for women. What we can do is lessen the number of abortions people get. Women who get abortions do not do it coldheartedly. It is a big decision that impacts their life. Most women who get abortions do so because they feel that they cannot care for their child and are unaware, untrusting, or absent of childcare resources. This can be changed through an increase in government funding of child care services, child support, and easier adoption processes.

Whatever we choose in the end, women will still do what they think is right. Making abortion illegal will not stop women from making the choice—they will still get abortions, and those abortions will be less sanitary and more unsafe. We will see an increase in the numbers of self-executed abortions and back-alley abortion clinics. We’ll see the death toll rise from illegal abortions, bringing us back to the 1980s, when the number of deaths due to abortion was at its highest. If we make abortion illegal, we will find that the progress we’ve made will be erased and history will repeat itself.

The numbers are too high. But what kind of America would we be if there were no numbers at all? We would be deprived of a right that we are entitled to. The most we can do is lower the numbers by making resources seem more available. Rates wouldn’t be so high if women didn’t feel like abortion was their only option.

Guttmacher.org

Abortoinno.org