KATIE'S LAW

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-katies-law-031109,0,3926110.story

Katie Sepich was a 22 year old student at NMSU when she was attacked, raped, strangled, her body set on fire and dumped outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

While my heart goes out to Katie’s parents, I find myself conflicted over the law that they sponsor.

http://www.katieslaw.org/

Katie’s Law would allow the state to collect DNA from anyone arrested on a felony charge, theoretically (at least in Colorado) anyone who was arrested but not subsequently convicted, would be expunged from the database.

13 states have enacted such laws.

The problem that I have with this law is that it seems to ignore the old adage of “innocent until proven guilty”, and an arrest does not prove guilt. One of the problems I foresee is what are you going to do with the arrestee… whose DNA is matched to a crime, but who is subsequently found not guilty? Is he allowed to walk on the crime that the DNA did match? After all, if he was wrongly arrested on the crime that provided the DNA sample, under what premise is the government allowed to use that DNA evidence?

Most states already collect DNA samples from convicted felons, it is a dangerous step to allow states to collect DNA from those who have yet to be convicted, for from there it is only a short walk to just collecting everyone’s DNA. For technically, there is no difference between you and someone who has been arrested yet not convicted.

Sponsors have proposed amending the law to allow the samples to be taken upon arrest yet not processed until charged, yet what is the difference there except perhaps the oversight of the district attorney? Do we forget also that charged does not mean convicted either? Like fingerprinting, DNA evidence processed will be used to fish for matches. We could certainly clear a vast backlog of cases that have DNA evidence simply by taking samples from everyone… where do you draw the line?

The restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure are not in place to protect criminals, they are in effect a barrier to abuse. Implemented to ensure that the state, which is implicitly not trusted, does not abuse it’s powers. Sure, the country would be a whole lot safer if everyone’s DNA was on file from birth, if police could stop and search anyone they wanted, but would you want to live in such a society? Even if 99.9% of law enforcement and prosecutors were 100% honest, do you want to give the .1% left over the power to stop and search you whenever they like? Given that the process is colored in infinite shades of grey, with many who believe that the end justifies the means, the decision becomes even more complicated.

In Colorado the issue seems to criss-cross party lines, State Senator John Morse (D) of Colorado Springs, one of the sponsors and a former Fountain, CO Police Chief said his Bill would "ensure that criminals don't get a second bite from the apple." While State Senator Kevin Lundberg (R) of Berthoud said "To put the bad guys on the database is fine, but to put the innocent there is another issue entirely." I find myself in a rare occasion of agreeing with the state ACLU that "
"This bill flies in the face of the very fundamental right of people to be presumed innocent until proven guilty."

One could argue from a purely statistical basis that obtaining DNA samples from those going onto public assistance would greatly benefit law enforcement and the conviction rate of crimes. Yet all of you liberals, currently silent, would be screaming bloody murder... why aren't you now? Is it because the underprivileged happen to be a secure voting bloc and those arrested on felony charges (some 60,000 a year in Colorado) are not? Honestly, support and opposition to this measure seems to criss-cross party lines, my question is why?

It is a difficult thing to balance the rights of free men against the right of society to protect itself, somewhere one must draw a line between the individual and society, the question is where? Personally I believe that line needs to be drawn at conviction, for until then, are we not all presumed innocent?

~Finntann~