New York State Passes DNA Requirement For Almost All Convicted Criminals

New submitter greatgreygreengreasy writes "According to NPR, 'Lawmakers in New York approved a bill that will make the state the first to require DNA samples from almost all convicted criminals. Most states, including New York, already collect DNA samples from felons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. What's remarkable about the New York bill is that it would expand the state's database to include DNA from people convicted of almost any crime, even misdemeanors as minor as jumping over a subway turnstile.' Gattaca seems closer than we may have thought. Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"

Comments

My first thought:

[jm007]

Who is making money from this?

Re:My first thought:

[Tsingi]

Who is making money from this?

An excellent first question.

We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals.

I'd like to point out both violent and non-violent criminals start out as human beings, so if we just get DNA from all human beings, we will have it when they become violent criminals.

Re:My first thought:

[Moryath]

Remember, "they're all guilty of something" is the standard credo of cops and prosecutors. You can be guilty of something and not even know it thanks to the fucked up state of law in the USA.

The goal of a program like this is to DNA-code the entire populace, which is ridiculous.

The UK already has this, and worse

[SteWhite]

As usual for an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights, the UK got there first. In England, you get your DNA taken and stored simply if you get arrested - you don't even need to be charged, let alone convicted.

Re:The UK already has this, and worse

[MobyDisk]

Data cannot be destroyed. Truly destroying it requires significant skill and effort.

This is a lesson society has learned from the computer age. While a record can be deleted, it is really still there. On the drive, on a backup, on someone's laptop, on a flash drive, in a cache file, in an email, or some combination. Laws exist to make it illegal for governments, service providers, telecoms to delete data. So once it finds it's way to certain points it is protected from deletion.

If we really want DNA to not be held, then it must never be collected in the first place. And since it is so easy to do, and so prevalent it is unlikely that will ever happen.

Beginnings of a violent criminal

[wheeda]

Most violent criminals have their beginnings as a crying baby. Ergo, we should collect DNA from all crying babies. This will allow our helpful government to keep us safe. I'm way more concerned about turnstile jumpers than our government collecting a little DNA.

Re:Does that Apply to Bankers?

[Hatta]

Please. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein gets charged under RICO.

The new permanent underclass: Felons

[Paracelcus]

When you take away everything, you have nothing to lose! And someone with nothing to lose is the most dangerous thing in the world!

Re:Wouldn't it be easier...

[Tyrannosaur]

...to just imprison everyone, and let out only those who can prove they haven't committed and will never commit a crime?

FTFY

Re:Why is this different than fingerprints?

[tiberus]

While it may be a bit a paranoia, it is certainly not fear mongering. Fingerprint data which is merely an image of the swirls, loops, etc. that make up your finger print basically only one use to show that someone (or thing) left a print a certain location and then to show you are or may have been the person that left that fingerprint.

Your DNA on the other hand is a veritable cornucopia of information. It can reveal your genetic sex, relate you to your family members (who may also be in the database), tell if your a risk for a disease or cancer, a carrier for sickle cell anemia, the list go on and on and well on.

This is a slippery slope issue. New York states that no one else will have access to the information, at least not today. Researchers, medical companies want and eventually ask for and may be granted access to this information to be used to benefit them, not us.

Also consider that processing DNA is much more involved and technically challenging fingerprints, that concerns already exist about chain of custody, accuracy of the information kept and generated...

I simply can't see this ending well.

Not setting the bar low enough...

[XxtraLarGe]

We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.

We also know that nonviolent criminals begin their careers as noncriminals. Why not just require DNA samples from everyone?

Its Inside Out

[Walt Sellers]

Fingerprints can identify you.

DNA can identify you, your parents, your children and other family members.
DNA can show your genetic odds for diseases like diabetes or alcoholism.

Once your DNA is in the public record:
- Your health insurance rates might go way up because you have good odds of diabetes.
- Your car insurance rates might go up because you fit the DNA profile of a drunk, even if you don't drink.

And what do you do if you happen to be an identical twin, triplet, etc, whose sibling committed the crime?

Even if your DNA was never taken, it may suddenly be difficult to get certain jobs because now employer background checks might run a DNA scan on public databases and find out you have a relative convicted of fraud. (I might feel better about this if DNA-based background checks were required to be a candidate in an election.)