The Pros And Cons Of Mandatory DNA Testing
There has been several disagreements about the Government testing arrestees for DNA. Mandatory DNA testing is reasonable and legal by all terms. (Mandatory DNA Testing Is Constitutional 2). However, many have started to question it. The fourth amendment goes over privacy and personal rights, including unreasonable searches and seizures. Sarah B. Berson quoted in her online article, “DNA helps law enforcement investigate and prosecute crime, but the new trend of preconviction DNA collection raises serious Fourth Amendment issues for the criminal justice community,” addressing the issue in the National Institute Of Justice. (1) However, there is a reason for these DNA tests. It could bring a lead in unsolved crimes, and even clear someone’s name for a crime they are innocent in. The Government should be able to take DNA from any person arrested. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. “The information encoded in an organism's DNA acts as a
…show more content…
blueprint for the organism's biological development and functioning. DNA exists in the cells of all living organisms, and by testing the DNA found in a person's cell, scientists can come up with a DNA profile for that individual” (How DNA Evidence Works 1). The Federal DNA Database Unit (FDDU), serves the forensics unit greatly by helping investigations against those whose profiles are located in the National DNA Index System (NDIS). (Federal DNA Database Unit). It’s an important factor in forensic investigations as it has more leads than fingerprints. Fingerprints can always be faulty, as you need to be able to match the minutiae exactly. This is a problem, because at most times, the fingerprints found at crime scenes are smudged to the point where it’s not helpful at all. Fingerprints are always taken after an arrest, so why not DNA? DNA testing has been a life saver. Kirk Bloodsworth was the first American on death row to be rescued by DNA evidence. He was wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a 9 year old girl in 1984 (25 Wrongly-Convicted Felons Exonerated By New Forensic Evidence 2). Another story of justice would include Michael Morton, whom spent 25 years in prison for accusations of killing his wife. He was convicted in 1987 and freed in 2011. After recovering a blood stained bandana previously untested, the innocence project was able to match DNA with a felon named Mark Norwood. (Tapper) Morton already wasted 25 years of his life, and he would’ve spent many more if it wasn’t for DNA testing. Many people believe DNA testing is violating private rights. However, without Government testing on offenders, there will be millions of unsolved crimes. Just because someone is caught for a misdemeanor, doesn’t mean they haven’t been caught for a felony. For example, OJ Simpson was released for a murder he has committed, because they lacked DNA technology at the time. Becoming a well-known case, DNA testing has become a popular use in American criminal trials (Peterson 1219). There are dangerous human beings out there, and that friendly neighbor arrested for not having insurance on his car, could possibly be the unsolved town rape case. Although many claim it is a violation on the fourth amendment, having your DNA in a database is just like having an open profile on social media. You can find out Susan from twitter’s entire life on just one website. You can pull tweets from 2011 about someone speaking of inappropriate terms and get them fired from their job. Considering this is all possible on social media, DNA databases are highly less invasive than that. In the past, it has been incredibly time consuming to go through the DNA process. Some would consider it’s a waste of time. However, scientists have come up with a brand new machine that can identify a match within just ninety minutes. Mark Prigg describes the new invention, “The portable device, which looks a bit like a printer, can take DNA and produce the result much quicker than modern DNA systems. Most importantly, the device does not require any specific specialist knowledge to be used. All it requires is that someone input a sample of DNA, and it will then cross reference the sample with the DNA database” (2). It only takes around three minutes to insert the swab and begin processing. This is the future of forensics. It takes away the disagreement on time consumption. There are many other uses of DNA, rather than to just find criminals.
DNA expands to the uses of mapping your family tree, solving ancient mysteries, distinguishing animal mutt breeds, predicting the future, and even helping you lose weight. Your DNA traces back thousands of years, and by testing it you can find your great-great-great grandfather. Scientists have even used forensics to discover that the remains of Richard III, found in a parking lot, was not actually him, but a direct descendant from his sister. If you are wondering why Fluffy doesn’t look like a purebred poodle, you can explore his genetics to label his bloodlines and breeds. Now DNA doesn’t quite predict the future as it may sound, but you can use blood from a pregnant mother and saliva from the father to find out if the fetus will have any complications or genetic disorders. Lastly, anyone who would like to lose a few pounds but can’t seem to shed it off, you can identify your genes to find out what works best and what doesn’t work at all (Wilson
2-3). The government should be able to extract DNA from any law offender. It does not matter the crime, because it is unknown if they had made or will make larger crimes. Although it can be time consuming, it’s most likely that the arrestee will be gracious that their DNA has been taken once they’re accused of something they hadn’t done, and their DNA is already in the system with a negative match. There are millions falsely accused or are never caught of harsh crimes like murders and rape, and without DNA samples from anyone from an infraction to a felony, the numbers would soar. In an article by Randy James, he argues “it’s not just prosecutors and police who have embraced DNA testing. While genetic matches are extremely reliable,in fingering criminals, they’re virtually foolproof in exonerating the innocent” (1). This testing is for the greater good, unless you have something to hide. A simple swab inside the cheek can go a long way.
blueprint for the organism's biological development and functioning. DNA exists in the cells of all living organisms, and by testing the DNA found in a person's cell, scientists can come up with a DNA profile for that individual” (How DNA Evidence Works 1). The Federal DNA Database Unit (FDDU), serves the forensics unit greatly by helping investigations against those whose profiles are located in the National DNA Index System (NDIS). (Federal DNA Database Unit). It’s an important factor in forensic investigations as it has more leads than fingerprints. Fingerprints can always be faulty, as you need to be able to match the minutiae exactly. This is a problem, because at most times, the fingerprints found at crime scenes are smudged to the point where it’s not helpful at all. Fingerprints are always taken after an arrest, so why not DNA? DNA testing has been a life saver. Kirk Bloodsworth was the first American on death row to be rescued by DNA evidence. He was wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a 9 year old girl in 1984 (25 Wrongly-Convicted Felons Exonerated By New Forensic Evidence 2). Another story of justice would include Michael Morton, whom spent 25 years in prison for accusations of killing his wife. He was convicted in 1987 and freed in 2011. After recovering a blood stained bandana previously untested, the innocence project was able to match DNA with a felon named Mark Norwood. (Tapper) Morton already wasted 25 years of his life, and he would’ve spent many more if it wasn’t for DNA testing. Many people believe DNA testing is violating private rights. However, without Government testing on offenders, there will be millions of unsolved crimes. Just because someone is caught for a misdemeanor, doesn’t mean they haven’t been caught for a felony. For example, OJ Simpson was released for a murder he has committed, because they lacked DNA technology at the time. Becoming a well-known case, DNA testing has become a popular use in American criminal trials (Peterson 1219). There are dangerous human beings out there, and that friendly neighbor arrested for not having insurance on his car, could possibly be the unsolved town rape case. Although many claim it is a violation on the fourth amendment, having your DNA in a database is just like having an open profile on social media. You can find out Susan from twitter’s entire life on just one website. You can pull tweets from 2011 about someone speaking of inappropriate terms and get them fired from their job. Considering this is all possible on social media, DNA databases are highly less invasive than that. In the past, it has been incredibly time consuming to go through the DNA process. Some would consider it’s a waste of time. However, scientists have come up with a brand new machine that can identify a match within just ninety minutes. Mark Prigg describes the new invention, “The portable device, which looks a bit like a printer, can take DNA and produce the result much quicker than modern DNA systems. Most importantly, the device does not require any specific specialist knowledge to be used. All it requires is that someone input a sample of DNA, and it will then cross reference the sample with the DNA database” (2). It only takes around three minutes to insert the swab and begin processing. This is the future of forensics. It takes away the disagreement on time consumption. There are many other uses of DNA, rather than to just find criminals.
DNA expands to the uses of mapping your family tree, solving ancient mysteries, distinguishing animal mutt breeds, predicting the future, and even helping you lose weight. Your DNA traces back thousands of years, and by testing it you can find your great-great-great grandfather. Scientists have even used forensics to discover that the remains of Richard III, found in a parking lot, was not actually him, but a direct descendant from his sister. If you are wondering why Fluffy doesn’t look like a purebred poodle, you can explore his genetics to label his bloodlines and breeds. Now DNA doesn’t quite predict the future as it may sound, but you can use blood from a pregnant mother and saliva from the father to find out if the fetus will have any complications or genetic disorders. Lastly, anyone who would like to lose a few pounds but can’t seem to shed it off, you can identify your genes to find out what works best and what doesn’t work at all (Wilson
2-3). The government should be able to extract DNA from any law offender. It does not matter the crime, because it is unknown if they had made or will make larger crimes. Although it can be time consuming, it’s most likely that the arrestee will be gracious that their DNA has been taken once they’re accused of something they hadn’t done, and their DNA is already in the system with a negative match. There are millions falsely accused or are never caught of harsh crimes like murders and rape, and without DNA samples from anyone from an infraction to a felony, the numbers would soar. In an article by Randy James, he argues “it’s not just prosecutors and police who have embraced DNA testing. While genetic matches are extremely reliable,in fingering criminals, they’re virtually foolproof in exonerating the innocent” (1). This testing is for the greater good, unless you have something to hide. A simple swab inside the cheek can go a long way.