THE DNA sample has become an indispensable tool for protecting public safety. Its use needs to be expanded. Instead of routinely taking samples from people after they have been arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced, the samples need to be taken right away, at the time of arrest, when they can do the most good.
State Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, has offered House Bill 1382 to make that the routine practice, and the Legislature should approve it.
Lynn McIntyre, interim director of the Washington State Patrol's Crime Lab Division, says last year, police had 316 "hits" when entering DNA information into the computer system. Already, DNA identification has led to the conviction of murderers, rapists and other serious criminals who would never have been convicted without it.
It has also led to the release of the wrongly convicted. In Illinois, it led to the release of so many from death row that the state suspended its death penalty. DNA is a tool of detection and exoneration — both to the benefit of the public.
Under Miloscia's bill, a DNA swab would routinely be taken of all persons arrested for felonies, gross misdemeanors or patronizing a prostitute. The last category is included because it would have solved the case of the Green River killer, and could be crucial in cases like it.
The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the bill, arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment right "of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures ... ."
This is a crucial right in the Bill of Rights, but it does leave open what is reasonable and what is not. Courts have long found that it is reasonable for police to take fingerprints at the time of arrest, and to put the data into computers. Taking a DNA sample would seem to be no different legally. It is, however, a much more effective way to identify people.
"DNA is how we identify people today, just like we did with fingerprints 40 years ago," says Dan Satterberg, King County prosecuting attorney, who supports the bill.
Opponents argue that DNA includes medically relevant information that is private. So it does. But police do not test for that information.
"We don't have the equipment," says McIntyre. "We don't have the technology and we don't have the protocols." That is the way it should remain.
In Miloscia's bill, the information from the biological sample would be put into the computer only after the accused had been charged with a crime. If convicted, the biological sample and the data would remain in government hands. If the person weren't convicted, the sample would be destroyed and the data erased.
McIntyre estimates that Miloscia's bill would require processing four times as many samples as the state's five DNA labs process today — extra work, to be sure, and well worth it.
seattletimes.nwsource.com
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar