Question

Do you think DNA should be collected and genetic information entered into CODIS under any circumstances? If yes, do you think DNA should be collected from persons who are merely arrested or should a person be convicted of a crime before DNA can be collected? Would any crime qualify for DNA collection or just certain crimes? Which crimes? How long should CODIS retain that information? Who should be able to access that information and under what circumstances?

-Yes this was all one question-

Answer 1

Q1: Yes, DNA collection should be a practice in police departments and investigations.
Q2: Depends on the crime/arrest. If the arrest is a simple misdemeanor that violates laws in a civil society, then DNA evidence isn't needed (e.g. reckless traffic infractions, maybe DUI) However, if the person in interest is likely to be a convicted felon, or has committed a grievous act against the welfare of others, then DNA is necessary (i.e. making death threats, a person who is legally insane, etc).
Q3: Misdemeanors that do not include severe demonstrations against human welfare have no need to have DNA collected. However, criminals who have conducted felonies, and by observation, are likely to conduct it again if given a chance, should have full transcriptomes copied (i.e. terrorism).
Q4: CODIS should not delete that information, as crimes can have a network of connections.
Q5: Only top-level, trustable security personnel. A mall cop shouldn't have access to somebody's genome.

This topic is really debatable, not just in terms of privacy infringements and constitutional rights, but also for whom should DNA be collected. In my view, it should be those who are legally insane and are most likely to commit an uncivil act again. But it should be used because DNA evidence has proven to be very helpful in solving crimes and even serves as a source of information that police departments wouldn't know otherwise.

Answer 2

I'm sure @Shadow would give an interesting approach to this topic. I'm not too familiar in such subjects, and I'm making statements based on my common sense.

Answer 3

I understand, thank you so much for your brilliant answer

Answer 4

JM in my opinion has already supplied a sufficient answer. The topic truly can be debated both ways. In my view, the executive branch (police department) should only retain DNA in relation to any crime. The reason I say any is because there's been instances in which DNA evidence has vindicated people from long stints in prison. In particular in relation to cases of sexual abuse and rape that occurred decades ago prior to thorough DNA checking capacities, people have been released from prison based on DNA evidence. Rape is a felony, which evokes the question of what about misdemeanors?

In that instance, I'd still argue for a DNA database. My above example expresses the authority which DNA evidence wields, and as such, is valuable information in the court of law. I think that if you don't want the government to have your DNA, don't commit a crime? DNA likely falls under the Fourth Amendment, of your right to privacy and to be 'secure in your persons,' which is revoked when you commit a misdemeanor/felony, and are taken to prison. Thus it would be logically consistent.

As for just arrests, this too is still a confinement of your Fourth Amendment, where you're held in jail (distinction between jail/prison, former is in a police precinct). Currently, if you're arrested or if they have enough evidence to arrest you, they can require a DNA sample (https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-30-police-powers/dna-samples-when-you-have-to-give-a-sample/).

To me that makes sense, and if they don't have enough evidence to arrest you, or don't intend to charge you with such an offense, then they can only ask you to volunteer a sample. If you feel that your rights are being violated, there's always another amendment to help you, your right to an attorney.

To answer the question of how long, I don't see a reason for it to be wiped. It can be archived and compressed, but if it finds itself relevant in another case, it ought to be able to be used.

Answer 5

Thank you, Shadow. I really appreciate it.