DNA Collection for Misdemeanors?

I had to share because I received an email invitation to apply for Urban Leadership Fellows. Which I'm super excited about, I live for these moments. But the application is due tomorrow and if that's not enough there's a short 2- page position paper as part of the application process on whether DNA collection should be required for all individuals convicted of committing a crime, even misdemeanors.

They crazy! I'ma knocking it out though cause this is the type of stuff I encourage my students to do with a straight face like "It's not that hard".

Just know after killing it in less than an hour it takes everything in my power not to end these with #IDidThat #NoHypicrit #LeadingByExample #LeadingWithLove.

Whether you agree or not, I hope you enjoy me sharing a true piece of my existence with you.

Overview

Many states have adopted the practice of collecting DNA from all individuals convicted of committing a crime, even those as minor as a misdemeanor. Those in favor of the practice argue DNA collection should be standard practice while those who oppose understand the complexities of such a requirement. In this piece we will explore the pros and cons of a mandate to determine if collecting DNA from all individuals convicted of committing a crime deserve some serious consideration by law makers around the country. 

Introduction

Most will agree based on the data that DNA solves crimes. Since it’s introduction in the criminal justice system in 1986 when Dr. Jeffrey’s used DNA testing in a criminal investigation that helped solve two rape cases in the United Kingdom and delivered similar successful results when used not to long after in the United States which resulted in a 22 year sentence for a Florida man that committed several rapes in the area. DNA has been extremely successful for testing in crime scenes, paternity testing, and predisposition to disease. However, we also realize over the years DNA is merely a tool available to the public to help in these matters. When DNA is collected but never tested, or not enough of a sample is available to deliver an accurate reading DNA quickly becomes evidence of the shortcomings of our criminal justice system.

Evidence

Since 1996, when New York State’s DNA databank opened the bank’s DNA samples have been linked to more than 3,500 sexual assaults, 860 murders, 1,100 robberies and 3,400 burglaries according to Cyrus R. Vance Jr. a proponent of making DNA testing standard practice, thousands of criminal convictions have resulted.

New York’s implementation of this practice is an example of the positive use and adoption of this law, however, we know there are places without the financial resources New York has. Places that want to be cutting edge and deliver the best innovations to their communities but are unable to afford the other resources that make these tool as useful. Towns that have the ability to collect the DNA but never test it.

Far too often lawmakers vote to make laws that in theory sound good but fail to consider how they should be used and other standards that must also be in place to ensure the proper implementation which yields the same if not similar results of the case studies used in defending their position.

In 30 years DNA testing has quickly become a staple of modern crime investigations, you need look no further than the latest episode of CSI for proof of that reality. But only now is the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on the legality surrounding high-tech fingerprints in forensics. A sharply divided court ruled on June 18 that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing that could prove their innocence, deciding against an Alaska man convicted of rape and assault who sought a more sophisticated test of genetic material found at the crime scene. Four Justices supported the man, William Osborne, but the court's majority said the decision whether to provide access to DNA tests is an issue for legislatures, not courts; 46 states and the Federal Government already mandate at least some access to DNA testing, Randy James, argued in his article, The Problem with DNA testing.

Stance

With DNA testing so heavily mandated for the use of proving guilt or innocence in criminal investigations, William Osborne should absolutely have the right to use DNA testing to prove his innocence. However, the Supreme Court decided against suddenly constitutionalizing the process which leaves the use and implementation to be determined by individual legislatures. It is these complexities that will prevent DNA testing from being the savior of crime fighting across the country. Individual cities, counties, and parishes that all operate differently to determine a vast array of circumstances in which DNA testing is and isn’t appropriate.

Furthermore, the implementation of DNA testing of all individuals convicted of misdemeanors would further criminalize individuals by sending the message that we know you’ll be back, we’ll be ready for you and invalidates the notion of innocent until proven guilty. It is imperative the criminal justice system reject new practices that counterbalances this idea in an attempt to show aspiration towards rehabilitation and reform rather than continued convictions and lockups.