DNA collection is the most sensitive aspect of crime investigation. However, it is one of the most accurate means of determining whether a person is guilty or innocent. Since two people cannot share the same DNA, once a person is identified, there is no probability of wrong identification (Geddes, 2012).
Since the DNA collection from arrestees started, there have been numerous samples in the databases, and even more hits that have been generated for crimes (Elias, 2012). While this is a positive influence to crime solving, it has come with an increase in burden for police and other authorities. Most of the people arrested are not convicted. Since their DNA is already obtained, it will clog the system and possibly slow down the process of arresting and convicting actual criminals.
No matter how accurate and helpful DNA collection is, there should be limits to persons who get to have their DNA sample taken by the police. In America, it is wrong to presume a person guilty before due process (What every law enforcement officer should know about DNA evidence, n.d). Taking someone’s DNA without consent is hence against the right to privacy. It does not only undermine the constitution, but also passes unfair judgment to people.
Collecting DNA from convicted felons is warranted because they have already been found guilty. Authorities should then store this evidence in databases so that they can refer to it in the future, should the person engage in other crimes (Maschke, 2012). It can also save past and cold crimes, especially where a felon has a serial crime record.
There is a difference between testing an innocent person and one who has been proven guilty. For instance, collecting samples from proven felons serves to protect the community. If a person is innocent, it only serves to victimize the person and give them an unwarranted record. DNA collection should hence be left to those who have been convicted, and not those all arrested.