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
Recently, Maryland’s DNA Collection Act has been under legal scrutiny as it is approaching the end of its life cycle to be continued or terminated. Monica Tan’s commentary well explains the two sides and explains her pro-DNA collection preference. I agree with Monica. It would help law enforcement and court cases arrive at the truth and let the innocent go free. However, I have found that a few of the DNA opposition’s points are trivial or even incorrect.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Maryland’s DNA collection is for those arrested for criminal acts. That means law enforcement has enough to put them in containment; it’s not like they are taking huge amounts of innocent DNA. In addition, privacy and humiliation are minimal issues. The DNA is used in the investigation and then is never seen again. I don’t think anyone would abuse the DNA collected. The fact that the healthcare providers that receive the data should not be able to use it in a way that would be a detriment to those DNA tested. There isn’t anything your DNA could do to hurt your insurance rate – especially with the new healthcare bill coming into action preventing discrimination of pre-existing conditions.
Monica stated that some “people argue that the law doesn’t have enough of an effect to remain in action.” I purport that the law doesn’t have enough disadvantages to be discontinued. As Monica pointed out, it helps solve criminal cases, helps to identify dead bodies, helps to reduce wrongful convictions, and provides additional clues in ongoing investigations. These benefits, I believe, are worth the necessary inconveniences.
The only issue not touched in Monica’s commentary is the money issue. It might be the sole issue the DNA opposition can hold without much resistance. Conducting DNA analysis costs government, and with budget becoming an even bigger issue nowadays, cutting such a program might help pay for something else. However, once again I think the DNA collection program is too beneficial to be cut.
All in all, the only people who would despise DNA collection are those who have something to hide. The benefits outweigh the negatives, as the ultimate goal is to convict criminals speedily and release those who are innocent.