Originally posted by: JediSage
In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.
In our case, I believe it's Orwellian because the person has already been convicted and punished for their crime. With the DNA issue they're practially taking the presumption of innocence of FUTURE crimes and tossing it out the window. Yes, they have a choice, but if we make the exception of having DNA for "criminals", then it won't be long before we do it when dealing with foreigners and immigrants (to protect ourselves from terrorism, no doubt), followed by children (in the event they're kidnapped). Things like this, and the proliferance of surveillance cameras, mandatory internet wiretapping rules, etc are giving rise to a very scary world.
I think this has the intend of being practical, instead of unethical or "orwellian". An "orwellian" situation would be to monitor that person's life forever after he has been released from prison. By collecting a sample of DNA they are basically gathering one more piece of information that could be use to identify possible criminous, which infact ARE commited by ex-prisoners. How different is taking DNA than taking a photo or your fingerprints? I belive it's not a question of being ethical or not.