It’s bad enough to push for collecting DNA from arrestees (see my report and this op-ed I wrote with Sarah Preston of the ALCU of NC), but to use misleading or inaccurate arguments to push for this dangerous intrusion into the lives of innocent citizens is inexcusable.

The N & O’s recent work provides some evidence of what I’m talking about.

1) The Exoneration Myth

In a surpising editorial yesterday supporting the collection of DNA:

A 2003 state law already requires that people convicted of felonies provide samples.  That earlier measure, Cooper says, has helped solve crimes – and exonerate people wrongly convicted in the past. [Emphasis added].

From an N & O article today:

Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat,
said he had some reservations about collecting DNA before a conviction.
Glazier, a lawyer, represented Lesley Jean, a former Marine who was
falsely convicted of a 1982 rape. DNA eventually proved he was innocent.


Facts: To exonerate someone, such as the Marine that Glazier discusses, one only needs the DNA from the individual and then to compare that DNA to the DNA collected at the crime scene.  A massive DNA database is completely unrelated to exonerating people.  It is true that a bigger database could theoretically help in rare instances to help figure out who did commit a crime, but that has nothing to do with exonerating someone.

2) DNA Samples Won’t Provide Much Information to the Government

From the same N & O article:

Currently, DNA is collected only from those convicted of a felony.
Samples would include only information that could identify a person and
not information such as health predispositions or family traits.

 

Facts: This is inaccurate and I’m surprised it would even be in the article.  A DNA sample can provide an endless amount of information.  The reporter is trying to get at the argument that the tests run on the samples look to what is called “junk DNA.”  It is critical to understand that the DNA samples themselves are still available for more extensive DNA analysis.  As I wrote in endnote 10 in my report:

While DNA profiles are created using ?junk DNA,? this information is still believed to be capable of providing sensitive information. As the Human Genome Project has stated ?single tandem repeated DNA bases (STRs), which are not known to code for proteins, in the future this information may be found to reveal personal information such as susceptibilities to disease and certain behaviors.? Further, the DNA samples themselves still are available for more extensive DNA analysis.

The legislature may soon pass HB 1403, which would be a huge step towards Big Brother government.  If legislators are going to support this misguided bill, they should at least have the facts.