Should new DNA bill in the state legislature pass?

The bill wants DNA collected at arrest, not at conviction, for those facing felony charges.

My gut says no way. America’s most precious rule is innocence until proven guilty. Does the state have a right to my DNA sample? Then they should have the right to that of someone arrested and charged, but not proven guilty.


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    This is a tough one. I say that because I believe fingerprints and pictures are already taken before conviction. And if I understand the article if not convicted the results will be espunged if requested. I don’t like that– they should be espunged period if not convicted.
    And this sentence from the article makes no sense, “Critics have raised concerns over civil liberties because DNA would be taken of people who have not been charged with crimes.” I thought you had to be charged with a felony to trigger the test. ?? And once word gets around that this will be done look for more people not stopping but evading for lesser crimes thus causing police chases. I lean toward no because once passed they will try to have it apply to misdemeanors and then traffic stops. It almost always works that way.

  2. The Lorax says:


    But then, I also oppose the Patriot Act.


    One could argue that if fingerprints are taken, why not DNA ? The answer is that DNA is more convincing than fingerprints . Charging a person with a felony is within the discretion of the prosecutor and the presumption of being innocent is a sacred right. This proposed new law is well meaning but that is not a reason to compromise civil liberties.

  4. Well, just to prove how checked out I am today, fingerprints never crossed my mind.

    Ok. No, you can’t have my fingerprints either.

  5. Wilson828 says:

    The age of electronics has become quite intrusive hasn’t it….