Read this news article a couple of weeks ago about whether it's constitutional to sample for DNA on those who are arrested without a warrant. Sounds to me like one of those ethical controversy on the usage of technology vs. the notion of privacy.
The summary of the story is this: This guy was arrested for assault charges and his DNA was taken as per state law. The DNA sample was then submitted to federal DNA database to see if there were any matches. Turns out his DNA matched that of a rapist who committed the rape 6 years ago. He was then tried for the rape and sentenced to life in prison.
So. Here's the question- do you think people should have their DNA sampled during a warrantless arrest just to see if it matches anything in the crime database, or do you think that is violating their privacy? Put it another way, do you think that when someone is arrested for crime A, he/she should only be investigated for that crime only and nothing else, or do you think it's fair that he/she also be checked against national crime database to see if he/she committed other crimes?
I think it depends where you stand at any given time. Those who are arrested (or who have a high tendency to be arrested) will obviously want the opposite of those who want to be protected by the law and order. That's obvious enough. But here's the tricky part: who is to say that you or I will not be arrested one fine day? When that happens, will we still be so willing to provide our DNA in the name of security? You and I know that our DNA is like the ultimate pool of information about us; it can be dangerous if it's being misused. So then the question becomes privacy vs. security- where is the balance?
There's a mini-series produced by PBS, a 5-episode series called The Last Enemy (it's all on YouTube), that revolves precisely on this issue. Very relevant to the era we live in today, maybe even plausible in the near future. Watch it if you have the time. And tell me what you think! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment