The Supreme Court ruled today that police can take a DNA swab from someone they've arrested without first obtaining a warrant. Strangely, the vote on the Court was only 5-4 with the usual coalitions scrambled. The majority ruled, however, that taking a DNA swab is the equivalent of taking someone's fingerprints or picture upon the arrest.
This clearly seems to be the correct decision. There is no way to distinguish meaningfully between fingerprints and DNA samples. Even so, opponents worry that the DNA might find its way into a national data base. They also call the test "invasive". Let's think about those criticisms.
I happen to be in a national data base of fingerprints, and my estimate is that most folks are in that computer file with me. Did you serve in the military? If so, your fingerprints are on file. Have you ever gotten a passport? Again, if you did, your fingerprints are on file. Are you a foreign national entering the USA? The data base has your fingerprints there too. Of course, if you were ever arrested for a felony or misdemeanor, your fingerprints made it into the "hall of fame". Agencies like the FBI and various police forces use these fingerprints on file to solve all sorts of crimes, and they have done so for over 80 years. It is no big deal to be part of the data base.
But what about the "invasive" testing of DNA? In truth, taking a DNA sample involves putting a long swab next to the cheek of an individual. That is no more invasive than getting someone's finger prints or picture. All three are processes that take just a few seconds with essentially no discomfort or embarassment. Indeed, the so called invasive nature of a DNA sampling seems only to exist in the eyes of a few people who want to hamper efforts to fight crime.
This clearly seems to be the correct decision. There is no way to distinguish meaningfully between fingerprints and DNA samples. Even so, opponents worry that the DNA might find its way into a national data base. They also call the test "invasive". Let's think about those criticisms.
I happen to be in a national data base of fingerprints, and my estimate is that most folks are in that computer file with me. Did you serve in the military? If so, your fingerprints are on file. Have you ever gotten a passport? Again, if you did, your fingerprints are on file. Are you a foreign national entering the USA? The data base has your fingerprints there too. Of course, if you were ever arrested for a felony or misdemeanor, your fingerprints made it into the "hall of fame". Agencies like the FBI and various police forces use these fingerprints on file to solve all sorts of crimes, and they have done so for over 80 years. It is no big deal to be part of the data base.
But what about the "invasive" testing of DNA? In truth, taking a DNA sample involves putting a long swab next to the cheek of an individual. That is no more invasive than getting someone's finger prints or picture. All three are processes that take just a few seconds with essentially no discomfort or embarassment. Indeed, the so called invasive nature of a DNA sampling seems only to exist in the eyes of a few people who want to hamper efforts to fight crime.
1 comment:
One correction--I don't think fingerprints are required for a U.S. passport although some other countries do have this requirement.
Post a Comment