Every state has its own set of laws on DNA databases and you know these laws will be expanded and changed. There have been a lot of challenges to the collection and retention of DNA evidence on constitutional grounds (unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, ex post facto, etc.). We read about the Innocence Project cases where DNA clears someone who has been wrongly convicted, certainly a good and just result.
In 2007 a serial rapist pleaded guilty to his crimes and DNA was critical evidence. But his arrest came about because someone recognized him, not because of any DNA database. In fact, the police had swabbed 500 men over the years, looking for a DNA match of the rapist.
Bioethics is an interesting field, isn't it? How far is too far? I remember the worries about "test tube babies" and the birth of "Baby Louise." Louise is now 30 years old. The procedure that resulted in her conception is not rare.
Time marches on. I will keep telling myself that DNA is just a sophisticated fingerprint.
In 2007 a serial rapist pleaded guilty to his crimes and DNA was critical evidence. But his arrest came about because someone recognized him, not because of any DNA database. In fact, the police had swabbed 500 men over the years, looking for a DNA match of the rapist.
Bioethics is an interesting field, isn't it? How far is too far? I remember the worries about "test tube babies" and the birth of "Baby Louise." Louise is now 30 years old. The procedure that resulted in her conception is not rare.
Time marches on. I will keep telling myself that DNA is just a sophisticated fingerprint.