As guest Rebecca Brown from The Innocence Project noted, what the State needs is comprehensive wrongful conviction reform, something which an expansion of the current DNA database alone can’t address. Your thoughts posted below…

State Senators are calling for the largest expansion of New York's DNA databank since it was created more than sixteen years ago. The bill, which passed yesterday and has the support of Governor Cuomo, would require those convicted of all felonies and misdemeanors to submit DNA samples. The current law only requires samples after felony convictions and some misdemeanor charges. The legislation was sent to the Assembly for consideration.

Supporters of the bill think expanding the databank will help solve crimes, since people who commit serious offenses often have been arrested for lower-level misdemeanors. Democratic opponents worry about misuse of the databank, saying the bill should include provisions to make it easier for defendants to access the database. Others fear those found guilty of low-level crimes may be considered criminals forever.

Should everyone convicted of felonies and misdemeanors be required to submit DNA to the State's database? Do you have any concerns about the use of DNA when solving crimes? How should the State Assembly vote on this issue?

Send your thoughts using the link above.

I believe they should expand New York's DNA databank. I also believe in being fingerprinted also.

It seems as though they object because they worry about what might happen after the fact.

They should worry about it before and try not to get into any trouble.

So far almost every day that we hear of crimes of one kind or another almost all of the perpetrators have had some problem with the law at one time or another. That's because they get off easy and even then what it amounts to is they become repeat offenders.

Life isn't easy for any of us at one time or another.

Many of us that have never struggled ever are finding out what it's like on the other side of the tracks. It happens. Nothing is a sure thing in this life.

maxxiee
mp

I’m opposed to expanding DNA collection. Government is never satisfied with the information it has on an individual. It always wants more and more. If this law is passed, everyone will eventually be required to provide DNA information. Except, of course, government workers. Stop it now.

Joe
Port Richmond, SI

THERE ARE 15,000 FORENSIC EVIDENCE PROFILES FROM DNA COLLECTED AT CRIME SCENES.

THEORY HAS IT THAT IF A PERP IS LOCKED UP AND DNA IS COLLECTED AT TIME OF ARREST, DNA COULD POSSIBLY BE LINKED TO PRIOR CRIMES IF MATCHED TO THE DNA IN THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE PROFILE DATA.

YOU DON'T WANT DNA COLLECTED AT TIME OF ARREST? STOP DOING CRIMES.

JOE
BAY TERRACE

I think that the expansion of DNA databank is necessary both to feasibly pursue offenders as well as to acquit innocent prisoners.

Rafael
Bushwick

I do have some concerns about privacy issues; however, if there are statistics that the databank has helped solve crimes, then I am in favor of it.

Maddalena
Midtown West-Manhattan

Everyone born in New York upon their first year should be required to submit for the dna databank. Hopefully it will cut down on crimes in the future where people have their dna on file, criminal offender or not.

Adam
Queens, NY

I assumed that the powers that be have been collecting DNA for years. So they pass a law finally making what they are already doing legal. No matter what we say or think, the law will pass. Once a new technology is available they feel compelled to use it. Don't get me wrong I am not totally against this, as long as there is some oversight . Though it's a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Nick
Hell's K.

I am in total agreement in that felons along with those who commit certain misdemeanors should have their DNA entered into the criminal database.

While I would think this would deter individuals from committing future crimes, statistics show that most criminals end right back up in jail.

The DNA information in the criminal database would allow prevent innocent individuals from being punished for crimes that they did not commit.

Thomas
Alphabet City

Although some may consider the databank as punative, these preventative measures could truly make a difference between an unsolved crime and achieving justice. If used ethically, this could be one of the best technological tools used to solve crimes in the 21st Century.

Jennifer
Dyker Heights

The Senator from Brooklyn may not be the best representative to explain this bill. He seemed to make the case that having DNA would PREVENT crimes. His argument was not convincing, and I am not against collecting DNA from criminals.

Bill
Manhattan

i'll support it....if wall street thugs, convicted cops and politicians are included in the database. if not, not a chance

deb
jackson heights

Absolutely not. Not every felony is a rappest or murder.

Juanita

This is a terrible idea which I believe was rejected in the late 90s. What happens when there is a ticket blitz to raise revenue like those silly summones almost ten years ago? It's a slippery slope towards an Orwellian system.

Dennis
Brooklyn

It's definitely a good thing for everyone.

It's people like her that who want to take away power from the police and have sympathy for a person convicted of a crime. Until she becomes a victim, then she'll want to know why the police aren't doing their jobs.

Can't have it both ways.

This can only help prevent future crimes, and help solve future crimes.

Let her work in jail for one day , or walk the beat for one day. Then ask her footer her opinion again.

Ryan
Glendale

Requiring DNA samples of everyone who gets a misdemeanor or felony conviction essentially declares that everyone in the system is now a suspect for any crime that has been or will be committed, past, present, or future. Such blanket suspicion ought to be an obvious violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, not to mention another sign of the ever-creeping influence of the prison-industrial complex on everyday lives. How do we know such a database won't be used to track political dissenters like those in Occupy Wall Street, or people who have the misfortune to be stopped-and-frisked while black? Our system is supposed to presume innocence. Requiring DNA samples sounds like it automatically presumes guilt.

Chris
Lower East Side

ABSOLUTELY—DNA should be taken and stored any time a person is convicted regardless of the level of the crime. I think history has proven that people who commit felonies generally started out committing misdemeanors; almost every time there’s a house break-in, a deli stick-up, or a murder, it seems like the perpetrator had a rap sheet a mile long. A DNA databank could also be used to prove people innocent of certain crimes if their DNA was on file and didn’t match the crime scene.

What I’d like to know is why so many criminals with 15, 20, and more convictions are still walking the streets—like the guy who shot the cop the other night; there should be a three-time convicted rule like in the Cagney/Bogart days.

Walter
New Dorp

If it gets the guilty locked up and the wrongly convicted set free, then I'm all for it.

Frances
East Village

The dept. of corrections already takes finger prints and retinal scans before you are convicted. The entire judicial system is predicated on conviction rates which leads prosecutors to being more concerned with getting a convection then finding the real perpetrator.

My question is, will the suspects be charged for the expense of the DNA swab and how long will it take to process their DNA before they can go home?

As someone who works in the criminal justice system and has seen DNA samples being taken, I can tell you this is neither cheap nor quick. The process adds hours to the incarceration time of misdemeanor offenders who are imprisoned only because of the gridlock of the system.

Sam
Brooklyn

I was wondering: nobody is questioning whether or not the finger prints is intrusion into one’s privacy. So what’s the difference between the finger prints and the DNA in terms of privacy?

Nadia
Edgewater, NJ

Saying that if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about presupposes that all members of law enforcement never act illegally or make a mistake. We all know this is not true.

Mitchell
Upper West Side

i personally thank that this DNA mess is a bad idea it goes against all consitutional rights. No it should not be used against them in other crimes because one thing has nothing to do with another. Because a person has a felony should not be mandatory to give DNA this is totally against all rights of a person

Mrs. Simmons
Manhattan

I'm against it because I don't that Government will always use this information for the right purposes or that they will handle it correctly.

We've seen this recently when 9/11 happened, a large net was cast in the Arab-American community to investigate them and men were called to register w/ the government mandatorily. Men who live in certain areas and of certain age range, to show up in government offices, and in the NGO community, we've heard that some were arrested without charges and who knows what happened to others as alot was secretly done.

No one knew that 9/11 was going to happen, so I think ethnic communities are esp vulnerable to Governmental abuses, if they think that the situation calls for it and we know it's not easy to challenge Government and in the meantime, people are in jail for years. I don't don't trust the Government and believe it's a really bad idea to give this much power away to them.

DNA is important to many innocent people are serving time in jail and the DNA with catch the real criminal and also help to discovery missing children and murders that takes decades to solve.

D
Midtown

rape, sexual assult, abuse of children, murder yes, with strong regulation of use. everything else no!

meryl
manhattan

I just wanted to thank you for a fascinating show tonight! Who knew fortune telling was a crime? Not I!

Bill
Manhattan

I think it's a bad idea. As long as you have racial profiling in this country, it wouldn't be fair. DNA is the best smoking gun we have in the judical system now, better than any eye witness. Until the NYPD can be cleaned up, get rid of all those dirty cops I wouldn't trust that DNA would be linked to the correct crimes. It could easily be attached to any unsolved crimes by any bad, dirty cop. Who's going to police the police?

And then there's the wrong place at the wrong time. You can leave DNA anywhere just by accident.

M

I am all for this DNA expansion. If you're truly innocent, you'll be able to prove it!! No need to worry, and this is will reduce crime rate too.

Taylor
Brooklyn

I fully support the collection of DNA database if this program starts with bankers and all the other people in the financial industry.

Harlan
Inwood

I agree that this can easily be abused.
I am absolutely against DNA sampling for misdemeanor convictions.
I'm not even sure I agree with it for felony convictions, to be honest.

Barri
Jackson Heights

The problem is not that also those convicted for misdemeanors will have to provide DNA samples but that sooner or later everybody, also those who have never been convicted, will have their DNA entered into a database. Because this bill will undoubtedly lead to more convictions in the medium to long term, it will be very tempting to keep on expanding the mandatory collection of DNA until also first time offenders can be caught via a DNA database.

This is Big Brother coming closer with baby steps...

Kris
Midtown West
Manhattan