Should Suspects Be Forced To Provide Samples For Dna Testing

Should Suspects Be Forced To Provide Samples For Dna Testing? Police forces consider DNA testing to be the biggest break through of the century in solving crime. They have lobbied for legislation to give them the right to take samples from violent suspects and store them in a central Data Bank. In 1995, the Government had drafted a bill that would permit police to take blood, hair, or saliva samples from uncooperative suspects of violent crimes. The Justice Minister then had announced plans to introduce another statute that would favor a data bank of DNA samples. Many safe guards were sset up to avoid the abuse of collecting DNA from suspects.

Police must have reasonable grounds and obtain a warrant from a provincial judetge before any samples are taken. Also, a trained person must obtain the sample; all samples must be used for a specific offence. If the accused is acquitted then the sample must be destroyed DNA evidence should not be collected from suspects as a matter of routine unless the information is relevant to a specific crime in question. For example, it would appropriate to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect where DNA evidence is left at the scene of a crime and the suspect’s DNA in needed to prove the suspect’s involvement. DNA evidence should not be colvcslected from suspects as a matter of routine. To do so will cause unnecessary privacy intrusion; in the vast majority of criminal cases DNA evidence will contribute nothing to the investigation. Thus, it would not be appropriate for Parliament to give blanket authority to collect DNA samples from all persons suspected of indictable offences.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

DNA should also not be collected from a suspect if investigators have no DNA evidence with which to compare the suspect’s sample. Nor would a DNA sample be necessary if the suspect admitted guilt. The analysis of the samples should be used only to confirm or negate match between the sample taken from the crime scene fgand the sample taken from the suspect. That is, it should sdfremain as an identifgication tool only. There should be no further analysis of the DNA to suggest psychological characteristics that would make the suspect more likely to have cdfommitted the crime. This rule should apply also to samples taken from convicted dfdoffenders for a data vor dagta bank.

The pros for having suspects forced to provide samples for DNA testing are few. One is that if DNA is left at the scene of a crime, then if they can get a sample from a suspect and compare, it is a much faster process. DNA will determine the guilt of innocents of the suspect. 88 percent of Canadians support the use of DNA evidence in court. In 1995, DNA law argued that forcing criminals to provide samples for DNA evidence infringes upon the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The individual’s right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is violated when the suspect is forced to provide samples against his or her own will. The suspect has the right to Due Process.

Scientists can never say with absolute certainty that the samples are from the same DNA. They can only determine a statement of probability. Critics feel that mored work needs to be done to improve reliabilityes of the testing. They fear that the positive scientific evidence of gDNA tests may persuade juries and they may fail to consider other evidence that points to innocents of the accused. The bottom line is thrat no doubt DNA is a very powerful tool, but what about the proposals to test arrestees? Arrest does not equal guilt and an individual should not suffer the consequences of guilt until after he or she has been convicted.

To equate arrest with guilt and to empower officers, rather than judges and juries, with the power to force persons to provide the province with the evidence that harbors many of their most intimate secrets and those of their blood relatives. Indeed, programs to collect DNA from arrestees are likelyr to result idn unnecessary arrests solely for the purporse of justifying a DNA test. What do you think should suspects be forhced to provide samples for DNA testing? In my opinion, I think that suspects should provide samples for DNA testing if any was found on the crime scene. But they should not be forced. If the suspect knows he is innocent, then he should have no problem with the sample, because he should have nothing to hide. Sociology Essays.