DNA Bill: AP Ignores AP Report

On May 19, the Associated Press reported:

A Longmont man charged in the 1975 stabbing deaths of a Grand Junction mother and her daughter has been ordered to submit fingerprints, DNA and other identifying information as part of the police investigation into the case.

Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn issued the order Friday for 64-year-old Jerry Nemnich. The order was made public on Monday.

Two days later, the Associated Press claimed, "Gov. Bill Ritter has signed a bill that would require anyone arrested for a felony to submit a DNA sample. ... Under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA."

Apparently Associated Press writers neglect to read Associated Press news reports. It is obviously not the case that "under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA." Under previous law, a judge could order DNA samples. You know, under the "due process" provision of the apparently superfluous Bill of Rights.

To date, nobody has seriously addressed my concern that the new law -- which I called "Bill 1984" for its Orwellian implications -- will encourage police and prosecutors to arrest and charge people just to get a look at their DNA.

That has not stopped Colorado Republicans from crowing about the new police-state law. On May 21, Owen Loftus issued a media release calling it a "GOP Bill," sponsored by Republicans Steve King and Scott Tipton. (Ritter is a Democrat and the former District Attorney for Denver.)

And State Senator Josh Penry, a leading potential candidate for governor, said in a separate release, "This is a big victory for the good guys. We know this bill will catch murderers, serial rapists and sexual predators who attack children. This legislation also underscores how members of both parties can come together to make Colorado safer -- and violent criminals, more accountable."

But what about the accountability of the police and prosecution, Josh? What about our fundamental rights to security of person and due process? What about the presumption of innocence?

When the police need not respect people's basic rights as they go about their job, that is not a "victory for the good guys." Instead, it blurs the line between good guys and bad, and it perverts the purpose of government from protecting rights to violating them.

This is an unpleasant reminder as to why I am not a Republican.

DNA Samples Before Conviction?

David Williams sent out the following media release, which I pass along as interesting information. I still need to think more carefully about this issue before reaching a definitive opinion, but the default position is that collecting people's DNA before they have been convicted of any crime is pretty scary territory. (Note that I do not endorse the Libertarian Party.)

Backlash against costly government DNA database builds

March 16, 2009 Denver -- Colorado Senate Bill 09-241, which would mandate the use of government force to take DNA samples from innocent citizens, made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-1 margin on March 11, 2009. A wide range of groups have joined together to fight this un-American bill, which would cost taxpayers over $1.7 million to implement.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado, the Colorado ACLU, the Gadsden Society, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the Colorado Public Defenders Office, among others, all oppose this costly Orwellian expansion of government power over innocent Americans.

David K. Williams, Jr., Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party and President of the Gadsden Society is among those against the bill.

"The backers of this bill claim it will help law enforcement. Undoubtedly it would," Williams said. "So would the repeal of the Fourth Amendment. So would micro chipping newborns so the government knows where they are all at times, from cradle to grave. So would putting video cameras in every house.

"The point is that helping law enforcement is not the only concern Americans should have. Protecting the Constitution and preventing government abuse of power should also be a concern of all Americans."

The next stop for the bill is the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a hearing date has not yet been set. If the Appropriations Committee decides it is a good idea to spend $1.7 million of taxpayer money to implement the proposed DNA database, the bill would move to the floor of the Senate for debate.

Senator Morgan Carroll (D – Aurora) was the lone “no” vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Resources

SB 09-241 language

SB 09-241 Fiscal Impact note

SB 09-241 Senate Judiciary Committee Roll Call vote

About the Gadsden Society

The Gadsden Society is a non-partisan public advocacy group, fighting for the preservation and expansion of individual liberty throughout Colorado. The Gadsden Society monitors bills pending in the state legislature and advocates on behalf of legislation that expands individual liberty and opposes legislation that contracts individual liberty.

Contact information

David K. Williams, Jr.
President, The Gadsden Society

Rape as Punishment

I watched the film Deja Vu (starring Denzel Washington), and it's a pretty good action/drama based on a science-fiction device of time travel. I have two minor complaints about the story. First, it contains gratuitous and baffling references to religion. Second, it contains the following line, spoken by Washington's character to the central villain:

"You better have some KY; you're going to need it."

This is a not-so-subtle reference to prison rape. Where did we get to the point in our culture where rape is seen as a satisfying and socially accepted form of punishment? (Actually, the villain of the movie is so horrible that he would probably be protected from rape by maximum security, but the line references a common occurrence in America's prisons.)

Some day, some clever lawyer is going to figure out that rape (or even the high probability thereof) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Not only might that lawyer force major reforms in America's prisons, but he might bring a multi-billion dollar lawsuit on behalf of the victims.

Is it not an obvious point that rape is bad and that it should not be used as a form of punishment? Or should we also bring back torture, mutilation, and lion pits?