Criminals Need More Rights ... & Lefts

Maybe I’m different – wait – I AM different, but let’s plow ahead anyway.

A couple weeks ago I was having a conversation with The Hubster and I don’t remember, which is often the case, how we got to here but it went a little like this:

Me: “They should collect and file everyone’s DNA at birth. That way when a child goes missing, they already have it handy. Or, when someone is found dead, they are easily and quickly identified.”

Hubster: Attempts to get a word in… unsuccessfully.

Me: “Better still, sex offenders will already be data based for earlier pegging and criminals of all sorts can be identified and picked up quite early on.” Gathers momentum in that way only a great idea born of red wine can do.

Hubster: Recognizes said momentum and realizes that this is a one sided conversation as only The Hubster can do.

Me: “Do you suppose people will be all – ‘Oh, no, we have our privacy rights.’ And all, “Too Big Brother for us!’

Hubster: “Ahh”

Me: “We get blood typed at birth, why not DNA typed as well?”

Hubster: “Ummm”

Me: “It would be to the advantage of all really.”

Hubster: “ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz …”

Me: “People would probably be all, ‘Too Minority Report for us.” Shame really.

So imagine my surprise to see an article in the New York Times today; New York Pushes for DNA In Crimes Big And Small, (why is for lowercase but in is upper case?) by Diane Cardwell.

New York is trying to get a proposal passed into law that anyone convicted of felonies and misdemeanors will have their DNA collected.

What gets me is that there are actually people who are fighting against making this happen. Why?

For all of our forward technology and thinking how is it that we can still be so bass ackwards on this sort of thing? Why is the burden of proof still on the victims?

Seems to me we’d have a lot fewer people cluttering up our jails and being executed for crimes they never committed and more actual criminals taking up the space. That would be a good thing right?

After I became a parent and realized that even though I had been raised in a most inappropriate manner I could use that knowledge to become a good parent with a very large amount of commitment and work, I had an epiphany of sorts.

Wouldn’t it be great if they could do some sort of test at birth that would determine who would be a good parent and who wouldn’t, and you could just sterilize the bad ones right then?

I still think it’s a good idea.

My oldest brother and his wife decided not to have any kids because they felt the world was not a hopeful place. At the time, my other brother who was 13 said, “But Richard & Louise are smart people. If all the smart people do this, then in a hundred years the entire planet will be populated by idiots!”

Maybe this bit from the NYT’s article supports that theory:

“Expanding the law to include those convicted of misdemeanors, said Stephen Saloom, policy director at the Innocence Project, which supports DNA sampling of convicted felons, ‘is an inefficient use of resources, increases the risk of wrongful prosecution and conviction of innocent people whose DNA might end up at a crime scene and further strains a forensics community that is already complaining of a lack of qualified and trained analysts to work in their labs.’ ”

Wouldn’t the answer to that be … good old fashioned recruiting for the field and incentives for kids to pursue this line of work rather than not collecting DNA?

Thank goodness there’s still a good amount of smart people out there that are over ruled by their raging hormones.

Oy.


©2006 Dawn Marie Kelly, all rights reserved.