What are your thoughts on the DNA collection policy for those arrested for felonies
After completing the required reading and reviewing the DNA Discussion Material, submit an original/initial post in essay format (paragraph form) thoroughly addressing/answering the following:
- Fingerprints and photographs are taken from any person, arrested for any crime who goes through the booking process. What are your thoughts on the DNA collection policy for those arrested for felonies (remember, DNA is collected during the booking process, not after a person has been convicted)?
- Since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled taking DNA from a person is no more intrusive than taking fingerprints and photographs, should the DNA collection policy be expanded to include any arrest(felony or misdemeanor)?
- Or, do you oppose DNA collection from a person who is arrested (either for a felony or misdemeanor), rather only from a person who has been convicted (either felony, misdemeanor or both)? Why or why not ?
- Must be in essay format using complete sentences with proper grammar, spelling, punctuation and avoiding slang, text language and/or abbreviations.
- Do not retype the questions or include any of the instructions in your submission.
This is the DNA material:
Here you go
- For several years now, any person arrested for any felony offense in California is/has been subject to DNA collection as part of “routine” booking procedures (fingerprinting, photographing, etc.) based on Proposition 69 passed by California voters in 2004.
- When Proposition 47 was passed by voters in November 2014, several crimes were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors, therefore no longer subject to DNA collection.
- In 1997, William Harbour was arrested for a drug crime (now one of those reduced to a misdemeanor) for which he served prison time and was required to give a DNA sample as part of his release. That DNA sample linked Harbour to the murders of two girls (12 and 13 years old) 43 years ago. If Harbour were arrested today on those same original drug charges, his DNA would notbe taken and it is likely the cold case would not be solved (due to Prop 47 reducing certain felony crimes to misdemeanors).
- In 2014, a California appellate court ruled Proposition 69 (2004) that permitted the collection of DNA from those arrested for felonies to be unconstitutional (even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the process is constitutional, see Maryland v. King ). The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of that decision (People v. Buza ), heard oral arguments in January 2018 and made their decision in April 2018, reversing the appellate court decision and upholding Proposition 69.
- As of May 2021, CODIS has produced over 533,268 hits assisting in more than 545,000 investigations since its inception in 1998. Remember, not only can DNA link an offender to a crime, but it can also eliminate a person’s connection to a crime.
- On November 3, 2020, California voted for and failed to pass Proposition 20 which would have expand the California’s DNA bank to include those convicted of additional misdemeanor crimes.
Answer preview for the “What are your thoughts on the DNA collection policy for those arrested for felonies ” essay………………………
apa 383 words