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.