DNA Bill in Wisconsin Getting More Support

This needs to be stopped.

A bill to have DNA taken from accused felony offenders upon arrest instead of conviction is gaining momentum in the Assembly but has not received the endorsement of the state’s top law enforcement official.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is concerned about the $6.4 million the bill would cost in its first year and said officials must think very carefully about whether the bill infringes too much on civil liberties.

“The biggest problem that I see is that there are a lot of things we could do to benefit public safety, but we have to find the resources to do those things,” he said. “If we are going to start collecting DNA at the time of arrest, it is going to require the Legislature to cut spending somewhere else to come up with the resources we need to fund this initiative.”

Rep. Ann Hraychuck (D-Balsam Lake) and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) introduced their DNA bill in October after officials reported the state hadn’t taken DNA samples from about 12,000 felons it should have. The problem was discovered during the investigation of suspected Milwaukee serial killer Walter E. Ellis, whose DNA should have been taken when he was in prison in 2001 but wasn’t.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has endorsed the idea, and Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan (D-Janesville) said recently that he likes the plan but wants to study it more.

It’s not about the cost of implementation.  It’s about the continued erosion of our civil rights. 

1. While I have no problem with taking DNA from felons, it does seem wrong to do this simply for an arrest. We are still innocent after arrest, aren’t we?

   This is a ridiculous solution to the missing DNA problem, and the two legislators who offered it would seem to be dim bulbs.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1223 hrs




2. The solution to the missing DNA problem is to review current collection and cataloging procedfures. If they decide to DNA test every person arrested the problem that caused the missing DNA situation that spurred all of this is still present.

   If JB Van Hollen wants to oppose this based on costs I say that is fine. After all, civil liberty arguments only go so far. Most people will dismiss opposition based on civil rights with the usual “if you are not guilty…” thinking, but if it is portrayed as costing a lot of money that is something that people will more easily identify with.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 27, 2009 at 1353 hrs




3. So, let’s see.  A runaway kid or a kid breaking curfew would be forced to give up DNA?  How about arrests for gambling or disorderly conduct?  More DNA?  This is really an unnecessary violation of privacy, not to mention a lame-brained idea.

   Posted by GAMazy on December 27, 2009 at 1424 hrs




4. What TFG said goes for me.

   Posted by scott on December 27, 2009 at 1503 hrs




5. Once again, when confronted with an ant, government tries to kill the ant with a sledgehammer.  So am I to believe the reason the state’s DNA database for felons is in such bad shape is because it’s too hard to get samples from convicted felons?

   More overreacting from politicians desperate to look like they’re solving problems.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 27, 2009 at 1620 hrs




6. It’s probably just a case of thoughtless people and of politicians who want to be “tough on crime.”  Their political opponents are salivating right now.  As soon as someone arrested for a felony convicts some heinous crime, the opposition will be there to point out that it might have been averted had Mr. Politician voted for gathering that DNA.  You know I’m right.

   Posted by scott on December 27, 2009 at 1627 hrs




7. RS,

   http://bloggerbeer.blogspot.com/search?q=DNA

   In the Ellis case (the instigating case here), Ellis managed to obtain a DNA sample from another prisoner and submit it as his own. The sample was quickly recognized as a duplicate, but nothing was done to follow up on that.

   So, there are two boo-boos here, the first being insecure sample collection and the second is inadequate verification of improbable results, which is definitely what a duplicate DNA sample should categorized as (I don’t think impossible just highly improbably). Convicted felons sentenced to probation should be held in state custody until they have supplied a verified DNA sample. By verified I mean best two of three.

   Two separate samples are collected and cross checked, if they match the felon is remanded to the general prison system or released according to their probation terms. If a third is required it is collected and checked against the other two.

   What I would like to know is what type of material is used for the sample? Is it the stuff often referred euphemistically to as “genetic material” or any sort of body material? The sample should come from the least “privacy intrusive” source as possible so the sample generation & collection can be witnessed.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 27, 2009 at 2006 hrs




8. Scott:

   What TFG said goes for me.

   I rescind my former opinion!

   

   it might have been averted had Mr. Politician voted for gathering that DNA

   And of course, that would be silly (it does frighten me that I agree with Scott…heh). DNA evidence does not prevent crime, it only makes it easier to catch recidivists who do really bad things. It obviously won’t be used in non-violent or property crimes due to the cost. It’s a nice system for the detectives to use, but I really don’t think it does much to prevent future crime at all. DNA collection is not nearly the huge deal it’s being made out to be.

   Those two legislatorettes that came up with this knee-jerk response are just using the furor for some cheap publicity. They should definitely be de-elected if they are so unfamiliar with some of our basic rights as to put forth a steaming pile of legislation like this.

   What I would like to know is what type of material is used for the sample?

   I believe that they use a cheek swab. Someone correct me if that has changed.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1118 hrs




9. I don’t know if there has been any alterations to the original proposal, but if it is still unchanged, then the law calls for DNA sampling after any arrest, no matter how small. If the state has such problems with DNA sampling of those convicted, how in the hell are they going to be able to keep track of each and every DNA sample of people just merely arrested (and not charged) with such crimes as domestic violence, 2nd offense drunk driving, and the catch all of criminal charges when they can’t get you for anything specific, disorderly conduct. They need to fix the current problems instead of creating a bunch more new problems.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1150 hrs