Dna Profiling Pros And Cons

Technology is more prominent than ever, so it is necessary to draw the line between its usefulness and its potential violation of privacy. Much like fingerprinting, DNA profiling is a useful way to identify criminals and their victims; however, DNA profiling has proven much more useful and accurate. The genetic information that is found in DNA can be obtained through a number of specimens such as hair, saliva, and blood. Given a sample, current technology can decrypt genetic information and store it in a database to be accessed by law enforcement authorities for criminal justice. The FBI was given the power to establish a National DNA Index System (NDIS) when Congress passed the DNA Identification Act in 1994. The NDIS was launched in

While admitting that the CODIS has been successful in fighting crime, Pearson and DeLascio argue that DNA profiling represents an unwanted invasion of privacy. Because it has proven useful in law enforcement, government at all levels have attempted to expand the range of criminals required to submit DNA samples. Although it is not yet legal at the federal level, some state and local jurisdictions have passed laws requiring DNA from juveniles as well as those who commit only minor crimes In some cases, DNA is taken from innocent Americans and knowingly stored after the individual has been found innocent. Even more threats to civil rights come from unspecified retention timelines of DNA profiles. DNA profiling poses a large threat to civil rights, and numerous studies have shown it is not close to being one hundred percent accurate. Each source provides strong and concrete information paired with real and theoretical examples. Additionally, the sources make their claims based on the same points: accuracy, indefinite storage of DNA, and the threat of genetic discrimination. While both sources are strong in factual content, the argument in opposition of DNA profiling is more persuasive because it goes into further detail to support why DNA profiling and creation of a central DNA database infringes upon constitutional

The source supporting DNA profiling never explicitly mentions genetic discrimination, but it does point out that DNA stored in the CODIS is only developed enough for identification purposes and therefore avoids violating privacy rights. The source against DNA profiling does not mention the extent to which DNA is developed and by failing to do so is weakened when compared to the article in favor. Conversely, the article opposing DNA profiling include a fact that would strengthen its opponent. When discussing genetic discrimination, Pearson and DeLascio reference the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 that prevents health insurers and and employers from discriminating against individuals based on their DNA profiles. If the source in favor of DNA profiling explicitly discussed genetic discrimination and referenced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, then it would have strengthened its argument that DNA profiling poses only theoretical privacy violations. Neither source provides all information on the subject of genetic