In the swirl of outrage surrounding the tasing of Ryan Smith to compel his “voluntary” compliance with a court order to collect his DNA, we tend to forget about the reasons underlying the general desire of law enforcement to have DNA samples from anyone and everyone they possibly can. While in Smith’s case it was to compare it with DNA involved in the specific offense, it’s taken from people convicted of crimes, and now people merely arrested.
British cops, apparently, don’t find that sufficient, according to The Register.
Police officers in Camden, north London, are deliberately targeting kids under-18 for arrest just so their DNA samples can be taken.
The Met denies any such action has taken place, but an anonymous police officer told The Ham and High : “It is part of a long term crime prevention strategy. We are often told that we have just one chance to get that DNA sample and if we miss it that might mean a rape or a murder goes unsolved in the future.
The problem is one of incentive. Since there’s little in the way of a disincentive to round kids up for the purpose of collecting DNA, and a huge incentive to have everyone’s DNA on file “just in case,” it seems only logical that police would be pro-active in gathering their samples. No reason not to be prepared, you know.
Oddly, I suspect that many people who learn of this Brit trend will quietly say to themselves, this is actually not such a terrible thing. Less crime, easier apprehension and identification. What’s yer beef, Greenfield?
It’s about a value judgment, contrasting personal privacy with governmental intrusion. It’s about the right to be left alone. It’s about the government having far too much information about each of us, for it to use for its intended purpose as well as any greater purpose that technology later brings our way. It’s about our not being in a government databank simply because it makes their job easier.
Oh yeah, and it’s about not arresting innocent kids on a pretext.
We’ve taken much of our culture from the Brits. Will we be so cynical as to take our cue from them when it comes to the rounding up of our children to fill the government’s DNA banks?
“Have we got targets for young people who have not been arrested yet? The answer is yes. But we are not just waiting outside schools to pick them up, we are acting on intelligence. If you know you have had your DNA taken and it is on a database then you will think twice about committing burglary for a living.”Plus, it serves double duty. Not only does it provide wonderful assistance in identifying the perpetrator of a crime, but it serves the prophylactic purpose of letting kids know that they are now “on file,” easily found and identifiable should they decide to pull a move in the future.
Oddly, I suspect that many people who learn of this Brit trend will quietly say to themselves, this is actually not such a terrible thing. Less crime, easier apprehension and identification. What’s yer beef, Greenfield?
It’s about a value judgment, contrasting personal privacy with governmental intrusion. It’s about the right to be left alone. It’s about the government having far too much information about each of us, for it to use for its intended purpose as well as any greater purpose that technology later brings our way. It’s about our not being in a government databank simply because it makes their job easier.
Oh yeah, and it’s about not arresting innocent kids on a pretext.
We’ve taken much of our culture from the Brits. Will we be so cynical as to take our cue from them when it comes to the rounding up of our children to fill the government’s DNA banks?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suspect we won’t be cynical about it, we’ll embrace it with open arms as “for the children.” Supposedly to protect them, and with some punchy name, like “Christopher’s Law.” Which, as you say elsewhere, is always a bad sign.
See what happens whenever I try to be relatively optimistic? I get called on it by someone who points out my obvious flaws.
Oh, it’s worse than your critic thinks.
Hereabouts, newborn infants’ DNA is routinely taken for genetic research; it’s protected, at the moment, by the MN Data Practices Act — which is pretty robust, as privacy laws go — but there are ongoing efforts to pierce the privacy shield.
I don’t have the slightest idea how a court would rule if, say, there were an unmatched DNA sample in some criminal case, and the prosecutors tried to get via subpeona, access to the database to see if they could find a match (or partial match — maybe, say, the rapist has a child in the database? And who would be opposed to rapists being apprehended and prosecuted?), but if the Data Practices protections ever go away, they may not even to get a subpeona, but just be issued a password.
Why bother rounding them up as teens when a little pinprick at birth does the same thing?
The great placenta wall? It’s a permeable membrane, isn’t it?
Another point (although I don’t know what it’s worth coming from an anonymous commenter) is that such laws will not be a pretext for rounding up just the kids, but for rounding up Muslims, or Mexicans, or Jews.
And is that the kind of society we want to live in?
Sadly, that seems to be where it’s headed in our democracies.