'Next step' DNA sampling bill now in Sanford's handsBy Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, June 30, 2008
Melissa Haneline A pipette is used to measure precise quantities of liquid containing DNA COLUMBIA — As part of a two-year push to reform South Carolina's criminal justice system, legislators handed law enforcement officials a tool that will revolutionize the way they fight crime. Gov. Mark Sanford must now decide whether to sign or veto a bill that will allow law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples at the time of arrest for certain crimes. "That is a necessary next step; it is time to do that," North Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt said. Zumalt, Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen and other top Charleston County officials have been working with the Legislature since August 2006 on a variety of crime-fighting measures. They view the DNA bill as the year's biggest victory. Mullen said DNA sampling will have the same impact fingerprints had years ago. "That was a revolutionary change in law enforcement," he said. Lawmakers also agreed to form a commission to study alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders. It is a move that could eventually free up space in the state's prisons so violent offenders could be required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence before becoming eligible for release. The Legislature, though, left three proposals on the table: giving judges the authority to deny bail for repeat offenders, allowing police to search offenders on probation or parole without a warrant and putting more judges on the bench. "We need these," Zumalt said. "We're the most violent state in the country. These bills will get us out of this predicament by giving consequences to that small group that continually victimizes our community." Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, a noted advocate for overhauling the system, said the state must find a way to hire more judges. With court backups, pending cases leave criminals on the street, he said. "That endangers a whole lot of folks' lives," Ford said. Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, agrees that the state needs more judges but noted that the money was not available this year. "More judges would be wonderful but we are trying to keep our schools operating right now," he said. "That is our top priority." Charleston Mayor Joe Riley joined a chorus of voices in October 2006, aggressively calling for reform and pushing the Legislature to act. "We are extremely disappointed about the Legislature's failure to pass laws that would address the serious problem of career gun criminals on our streets in South Carolina and would help attack the upward trend in violent crimes committed with guns in this state," Riley said in a statement. He vowed to continue fighting for reform. Since Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, formed the Senate Judiciary Criminal Justice System Task Force in August 2006, several other initiatives have been put in place. The successes include: the state grand jury's ability to investigate gangs, a statewide public defender system that is in its infancy and the creation of multijurisdictional task forces that allow law enforcement agencies to temporarily transfer officers based on assignments. Last year, Sanford vetoed a bill that would have allowed law enforcement to collect DNA samples at the time of arrest, and the House decided to uphold the veto. Sanford outlined a number of privacy concerns with the bill. If he vetoes the bill this year it will remain in limbo until January, when the Legislature reconvenes. All states require DNA samples from convicted sex offenders and upon conviction for certain other crimes. Some states allow samples to be taken at the time of arrest, primarily for felony charges. The bill Sanford is reviewing contains a number of provisions in addition to collecting pre-conviction samples. It also allows prisoners to request their DNA be tested to prove their innocence and a provision that would allow the family of missing persons to have their loved ones' DNA tested against a database of unidentified human remains. Graham Boyd, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union South Carolina Office, said the provision to take samples upon arrest is a poison pill for a bill that could otherwise do a lot of good. "The privacy concerns that troubled the governor before have not been cured and in some cases, I think, are even worse," Boyd said. Boyd said that the bill could mean the state could have thousands of DNA samples on record for innocent people. In 2005, he said, more than 100,000 arrests were made in South Carolina and only 42 percent resulted in convictions. "The reality of this bill would be that the majority of the people who are arrested shouldn't have their DNA tested," Boyd said. Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 25 comment(s)
Posted by knightgale on June 30, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
30 yrs w/out parole for a non violent person, one who was only a child, influenced easily by "adults", to do the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, should certain be of thought for "alternative sentencing". 30 yrs with no parole for a child who did NOT murder anyone, enticed/lead by bad adults, is barbaric and inhumane, what happened to compassion and mercy, rehabilative efforts to "help" this child, become a productive member of society, instead of 30 yrs destroying their childhood and "life" and family.
Posted by jifdeng3 on June 30, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And freedoms trickle away. We are setting some dangerous presendents(SP) here. Whats next. DNA sampling at birth?
Posted by lillycollette on June 30, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jifdeng3: “And freedoms trickle away. We are setting some dangerous presendents(SP) here. Whats next. DNA sampling at birth?”
While I would not object to it I doubt that S.C. would ever -- "require" -- DNA testing at birth. The state would lose too much money in allowing innocent men to escape FALSE charges of paternity.
Posted by DanniD on June 30, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree...what's the big deal? If you are innocent then you should have no problem giving a DNA sample. Something needs to be done to keep track of these repeat offenders/new offenders.
Posted by theronce on June 30, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Someone should invent something to collect your memories and thoughts upon arrest. Wasn't there a movie about that. Anyway, "arrest" does not equal "guilty". However, in this day and age when people look at government to be their mommy and daddy, it's probably just a matter of time before we have to carry a chip under our skin that contains all of the relavant personal data so mommy and daddy can properly care for and punish us as they see fit.
Posted by BigSargeofSC on June 30, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As much as DNA can convict, it can also clear. How many stories have we read where a person was convicted of a crime only to be found innocent thanks to DNA testing?
Pass the bill, sign the bill, and lets get the dirts bags off the street.
Posted by smosellem on June 30, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DNA collection at the time of arrest is a glaring violation of our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, an unwarranted violation of privacy. Besides, who's going to pay for it? A dear friend is a "convicted sex offender" (in younger years had a consenting, but underage girlfriend with vindictive parents) and the state made him pay $250 for his required DNA testing in addition to normal court fees, which are almost always passed on to the criminal in a conviction. But who pays those processing fees when the arrestee is innocent? DNA testing should not be a "routine" part of an arrest - it should remain an option only when warranted (in the literal sense of the word, as in "requiring a warrant").
Posted by ln1959 on June 30, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They have my DNA being that I was in the military also, but I do see this from both sides.
Coldbeer, you made a great point in the John and Jane Doe cases that could truly help if DNA is token at birth and it may just deter some criminals from committing crimes.
smosellem, I also see your side of the case. There are cases where someone is not guilty, but they put them in handcuff and here we go, they have the right to take your DNA. Will they destroy your DNA when your found not guilty. I think not. They would have already ran it through the system.
Well that depends if its LA's laboratory. ha ha ha
Posted by metallic on June 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey ColdBeer, what about this too?
I see no issue with them installing cameras in a suspect's home upon arrest. It's not a punishment, it shouldn't require a conviction. Hell, I don't care if they DO start installing cameras in everyone's home. I can't see where it could cause anyone any problem unless you are living on the wrong side of the law. Imagine all of the Jane and John Doe at-home violence and crime that could be quickly solved. Knowing that you are being monitored while in your home might also be a deterrent to some when it comes to committing crimes.
Where is the down side? So what if "big brother" has a camera in your home? What does it hurt?
Posted by drp7773 on June 30, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How many felons recommit crimes, how much money is wasted knowing this and after each crime trying to figure out who did it. Come on we have finger prints, why not DNA but it needs to be in a national database so no matter where the scum bums go if they want to continue the crime life at least we wont have wasted dollars going after leads we will have the right tools to make an arrest quickly..
Posted by katrenavantassle on June 30, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mark Sanford is a good and decent man who will do the right thing. Only the guilty need be worried.
Posted by nikkiP on June 30, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see a problem. If I get pulled over for speeding, I can't imagine that they really need a DNA sample for that. I just don't feel comfortable with my information being on a database like that. But just because that worries me doesn't mean I plan on committing a crime, as some people would assume.
First, how many crimes actually involve DNA? If someone robs a convenience store, DNA would be useless in catching the perp.
And what's to stop the government from taking this kind of monitoring any further? First it's just a sample of DNA, then financial information (to see if a criminal has left the state through use of a credit card.) In fact, several local governments across the country are developing plans to put security cameras everywhere in cities and towns as a means of making sure people are safe. I'm sure it sounds great in theory, but how long before these cameras get closer and closer to our homes?
And we all know how hard it is for people to keep track of this information. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten letters from my college about "Sorry, but we lost all of your personal data and it's somewhere being used for who knows what." takes identity theft to a new level.
What if your DNA is mixed up with someone else's? Things like that happen fairly frequently already. I don't want to go to court because according to their DNA database, I killed someone.
Posted by kerwin1959 on June 30, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no problem with DNA collection for those arrested for violent crimes, sexual offenses, repeat offenders, even DUI and drug charges. However, I don't think a precedent should be set by requiring all arrests to have DNA processed. It's too expensive, and we don't have the money;basically because we're paying for illegal immigrants health care - $14M last year.
That same $14M would have processed 56,000 DNA tests!
In1959: I think(not completely sure) that DNA tests results cannot be transferred between agencies without a court order from a judge, or there may even have to be a hearing. Example: If SLED has your DNA on record because of a previous arrest, the DNA results can't be accessed by Family Court(say, in the case of "who my baby daddy") without written consent or a hearing overseen by a judge.
I'm not so WORRIED about "big brother", but I'm SCARED to death about the criminals out there taking away our right to enjoy our lives without fearing for our lives or the lives of our families.
Sanford has tried to overhaul our criminal justice and prison system since he's been in office. Hasn't everyone noticed that he can't get a damn thing done because of the "good 'ol boy" legislature?
Go to www.scstatehouse.net and look at what your legislators do. Stuff like "Sandifer introduces bill to declare day Miss SC(or Miss whoever) day to honor and recognize her achievements and causes". What a WASTE of our taxpayer dollars. And these same type people continue to get re-elected.
Please think seriously before we vote, people.
Posted by jifdeng3 on June 30, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MAYBE convictions for felonies. It all depends. I am all for being tough on criminals but not at the expense of our freedoms. That is my biggest objetion to the Bush administration. Here is a very interesting video from the 40's. Despotism, Scary!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0eGkx9cFALo
Posted by metallic on June 30, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer posted:
>>>DNA samples to cameras is quite a stretch. I can easily tell you 100 different ways that cameras in homes could be used improperly. How can DNA be used to screw you over if you are not doing anything wrong?<<<
I won't ask you to tell me "100 different ways" that government cameras in our homes could be abused, but I will ask you to tell me just ten ways.
And I'll tell you in advance, that I expect I'll be able to put "DNA data base" to replace "cameras" in some of the examples you give.
This issue is about separations of power in our government and about PRIVACY. We citizens do not need to "justify" our pursuit of privacy, but the government is supposed to have to justify its invasion of our privacy.
Right now, there is NOTHING stopping the government from taking DNA samples from suspects they arrest -- EXCEPT, right now, the police have to justify collecting such evidence by getting a warrant from a judge.
Why are you opposed to the "checks and balances" built into our system of government? Right now, when the police go before a judge to obtain an arrest warrant, they can also request a warrant to obtain the suspect's DNA. (The police could actually put cameras in your home too, but again, such action would require a search warrant signed by a judge.)
Why do you want the police to be free to collect DNA -- which is NOTHING like "eye or hair color" information -- without having to submit their request for such a search for evidence for judicial approval before doing so?
What are you going to argue for next, that police should be able to make arrests without warrants?
Freedom is maintained by keeping limitations on government power. One of the best ways to maintain "limited government" is to have in place, our system of checks and balances.
The new law, if signed by the governor, will increase police power and reduce the built-in checks and balances which are supposed to help limit police abuses.
Posted by Charles_Town on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Have no problem with the taking of DNA samples for people who commit crimes.
Posted by jifdeng3 on June 30, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
Wire taps and such have not hurt me either, but it a fundemental and systematic eroding of our rights. Whats next? Where does it stop? It may not seem like too much right now but what happens twenty years from now when we no longer have any rights or privacy and we are walking around scratching our heads wondering what happened. Our founding fathers would be so embarrassed at what our country has become. This country has no ethics or morals anymore. Its always someone elses fault and no polititian has the balls to stand up for whats right any more. Its all about corporations, curroption, money and greed and not the good of the society anymore.
Posted by beth1070 on June 30, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have a problem with taking DNA samples of convicted violent criminals. It could help solve a lot of other unsolved crimes. If you've ever lost a loved one to an unsolved violent crime you would understand why some people would be in favor of DNA samples being taken. I don't however, agree with taking samples at every arrest because like someone else posted earlier, and arrest does not outomatically mean guilt.
Posted by BPFROM843 on June 30, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I dont have a problem with DNA at the time of arrest depending on the charge and the seriousness of the charge I heavily favor alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders i dont think its right for someone to get 25yrs for selling the same amount of drugs that Thomas ravenel sponsors for all his rich friends and gets 10 months
Posted by cmobley4 on June 30, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
if it was YOUR CHILD that was raped, murdered or missing from a crime scene... you would want a DNA database. The funny thing about people is that they only want to be "balls to the wall" when it affects them personally. Otherwise they dont care and are offended by the concept. I believe DNA should be collected on sex offenders, violent criminals and repeat physically violent offenders. This isnt some Hollywood movie about BIG BROTHER and their satelites that watch you in your bedroom... we are talking about the safety and security of our children and loved ones. For that, I would give up my DNA willingly! I mean really, what difference is it anyways... your regular trash contains ur DNA... this is only doing it with your knowledge! The world has changed and isnt so kind anymore... I think its time that we accept it and embrace security measures!
Posted by ForPnC on June 30, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They've got mine already from my military days.
So, who gets to pick the "certain crimes?" I can't wait for them to swab the mouth of a drunk. Boy, that's going to get messy quick.
Posted by Time4action on June 30, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't really understand the problem. Just think of the lost and stolen children that could be found. And as said earlier, the unidentified bodies. I think it is a good idea. I really don't see a down side except maybe the insurance issue. But with the HIPPA laws, there is almost no information you can get without a signature. (I know because my job requires considerable verification of diffenrent types). No signature, no info. Unless you sign a release saying the insurance co. can get the info you don't have anything to worry about.
Posted by hollyman on June 30, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So what is the problem with having one's DNA on file? If one is innocent, what is the problem? A person who is arrested must have been doing something to warrant the arrest; that should be reasonable cause to get and keep a sample. I just don't have any problem with security cameras, DNA samples, or fingerprints on file. I do my best to live my life in a kind and Christian way, and have nothing to hide.
Posted by Carolina_Politics on June 30, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This same provision is up again in a similar DNA bill that has passed both chambers of the legislature. I think, as before, Sanford should veto this bill. I don’t like this idea of collecting a person’s DNA based upon an arrest. Being arrested is not an indication of guilt. So what happens to your DNA sample if you are found not guilty?
I agree with the provisions allowing prisoners to demand a DNA test to prove their innocence as well as that which allows family members of missing persons to have their DNA tested against human remains for identification. Those are good ideas and they should have been put up as their own bills instead of being combined with the forced surrendering upon arrest.
http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 2, 2008 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am with the only after convicted of a felony. You don't lose your rights by being arrested you do by being convicted.