Originally posted by: ricarleite
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.
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.
What's to stop them from collecting DNA from everyone? The case could be made that everyone is a potential criminal. Where does it stop? It's not about what the person has done in the past, it's about an unspoken assumption that they will perpetrate another crime in the future, which has serious legal ramifications in the United States. As far as photos and fingerprints go, I'm under no obligation to provide either, for any reason. The only time I've given my fingerprints voluntarily was when I filed for a permit to carry firearms within my city limits, and it's debateable whether or not that's legal. However, with the way companies are putting cameras and RFID devices everywhere, it's a moot point.
YIYF...I've heard that there are now 9 surveillance cameras for every 14 people in London. Does that sound right?