Proposition 69 - UPDATED


My take on Proposition 69 - NO

This is part of my ongoing series of posts on each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my scorecard and links to each of my arguments.

Proposition 69 - No

For me, this is the most difficult proposition to evaluate. On the plus side, it gives a very effective tool to our law enforcement officers, which is almost always a good thing. It seems comparable with fingerprints, only far more effective. It will reduce costs, as cases will become easier to prosecute.

On the negative side, it definitely has a "Big Brother" feel to it. Will it be only convicts who will be forced to give up DNA, or simply anyone accused of a crime? Once this becomes a standard, will we also force anyone who works with children and such to be DNA'd the same way we force them to have fingerprints on file? Could any of this database be used to frame someone for a crime? And lastly, will this lead to a Gattaca society, where insurance companies test the DNA database to determine if you should be forced to pay higher premiums for having bad genetics?

I've been leaning yes on this measure for some time now, but my vote could easily be swayed either way. I am going to be debating this in my mind right up until we vote. I may just figure it out with Janet and have us split our vote - one yes, one no.

Bottom line: This is a really tough issue to call. Either you side with giving a useful tool to cops, in order that they might lock up the criminals that would infringe on our liberty, or you deny them the tool in the understanding that liberty is lost in small little increments like this. Both sides sounds reasonable to me.

UPDATE: I'm calling this one as a NO now. For two reasons - first of, the ground rules state that tie goes to the NO, and I haven't been sufficiently convinced of a Yes vote, so it gets a no. Second, I think I would be a yes if this law was restricted to convicted felons - but as Andrew and Van both pointed out, this law also includes those accused of a crime. That swings me into the no column, as it creates just enough of a slippery slope for me to be cautious.

Posted: Mon - November 1, 2004 at 07:49 PM | | | | | | |

©