How much privacy is one willing to give up for “safety”? Day after day Americans are tempted with elegant ideas of safety if they are willing to give up just a little privacy. While all Americans desire safety, and rightfully so, how far is too far? How often do these promises of safety actually result in such?
While there are many arguments out there as to why an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime should have his or her DNA collected, we must not only look at the practicality of this, but also the facts. A law of this magnitude could open the flood gates to a massive invasion of privacy. Many supporters of this law claim oftentimes misdemeanor convicts go on to commit more serious crimes, so having their DNA in the system will help identify them sooner if they commit a crime. This invasion of privacy not only assumes that a misdemeanor convict will become a serious convict in the future,
…show more content…
America’s judicial system was founded on the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. Even convicts still have rights. Collecting DNA from misdemeanor convicts creates the idea that they are guilty, or will be guilty, of something. Doesn’t this go against the very principle our courts were founded upon? Should traffic violators really be subjected to the same type of DNA collection as rapists? This collection would create a slippery slope. What would stop law enforcement from collecting DNA from everyone because one of us might commit a crime one day and it would be easier for them to already have our DNA in the system? If it is assumed that misdemeanor convicts will go on to commit more crimes, what stops law enforcement from assuming regular citizens might one day commit crimes and their DNA should be collected just in case? Just like the old saying goes, give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a