[kesg]

Well, then, why stop with just people arrested but not convicted? Let's have EVERYONE submit a DNA sample. And their bank records. And let's allow cops to stop cars and search our homes whenever they want, without a warrant or probable cause. I bet we could REALLY put a bite in crime then.

I can just as easily make the same equally fallacious slippery slope argument, this time in the opposite direction. Why have law enforcement at all? or government, for that matter? After all, abuses happen, and some of the worst abuses in history are committed by governments.

The truth of the matter is that our choice is not between anarchy and totalitarian government. Some government is good, especially when it is limited to securing the individual rights of its citizens. I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses (in much the same way that we can give policeman guns while making it illegal for them to use these guns for criminal purposes or to commit torts).

[Black Agnes]

How would a DNA database secure your individual rights?

[inquest]

I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses

As long as you mean what you said earlier about allowing people to opt out, I won't disagree with you.

[dirtboy]

I can just as easily make the same equally fallacious slippery slope argument, this time in the opposite direction. Why have law enforcement at all? or government, for that matter?

Because the Constitution mandates government and law enforcement. Nice try, but no stogie.

After all, abuses happen, and some of the worst abuses in history are committed by governments.

And that is exactly WHY we have a constitution and limited government. You would seek to undermine constitutional protections in the name of more expedient law enforcement. I was simply demonstrating that we could do even more to make law enforcement more effective - but where do we stop - better yet, where does the Constitution say we should stop?

The truth of the matter is that our choice is not between anarchy and totalitarian government.

No, but your approach is much more conducive towards the latter than mine is towards the former.

Some government is good, especially when it is limited to securing the individual rights of its citizens. I see DNA databases as a means to this end, and we can certainly have them while also guarding against potential abuses (in much the same way that we can give policeman guns while making it illegal for them to use these guns for criminal purposes or to commit torts).

Sorry, but someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a crime should not have their DNA in a criminal database. Period. That is basically labeling someone in defiance of due process.

[mabelkitty]

Actually, I agree.

Armed citizens can do the job much better than LE. LE is paid to stay and wait for a violation to occur.

Armed militia would react as soon as it happens.

Who do you think criminals would fear most? Those that have to do cumbersome paperwork and get to the scene, or the people who are chasing your ass down the street?