Eyewitness reform bill fails; DNA on arrest bill passes
Just to show you how skewed the priorities of legislators are, let us compare two bills side by side.
On the left, we have the eyewitness id reform bill and on the right, the “collect DNA from the innocent” bill.
One is clearly needed, the other could be a significant violation of due process. (Yes, I do know that some states have held such DNA collection to not be a violation of the 4th. I disagree with them.)
As EyeID points out, the bill, while missing some legs, would have been a significant step in the right process. Alas, it was not to be. However, the esteemed legislators have deemed it worthy to collect DNA samples from people arrested of crimes. The argument behind this piece of legislation is that collection of DNA at the time of arrest would permit law enforcement to solve more crimes…because, you know, if you’re arrested, then you’ve probably committed a crime in the past.
Another rationale put forth by the State [pdf]- and I do love this – is that collection of DNA at the time of arrest would not only serve to solve unsolved crimes, but also prevent wrongful convictions.
The irony here, lest it be lost on you, is that the very same State opposed [pdf] the eyewitness ID reform bill, when DNA exonerations have shown that in 75% of wrongful conviction cases faulty IDs have been the culprit. Apparently, in eyewitness ID reform, there is a “pilot program” and the “jury is still out” on whether sequential or simultaneous lineups are better. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, no one knows how to use Google. There is some heavy citing of the Mecklenburg Report, which permits law enforcement to continually bury its head in the sand. The State’s testimony then quotes Gary Wells out of context (I’ve read about this being done in other states too) and ignores his response to this misquoting (I’m going on memory here – I’m sure the guys at EyeID know what I’m talking about – or if I’m imagining this whole thing, I’ll take it down).
The CT Public Defender’s response to the EyeID bill is here and to the DNA bill here. All the testimony submitted on these bills is available here.
On a positive note, the committee did pass the probation reform bill, which I discussed previously.
All the bills reported out of committee by last night’s deadline are here. For example, here‘s a bill “encouraging” bar owners to install breath alcohol testing devices. Here‘s a bill making it illegal to hang on a noose on public property, or private property without the consent of the owner.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on March 25, 2008 at 7:55 pm, and is filed under ct legal news, ct state law, eyewitness id, fourth amendment, proposed legislation, wrongful convictions. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Gid, the DNA bill will prevent wrongful convictions, but it’s a circuitous route. As Virginia has shown, the DNA database catches certain criminals a lot earlier than they would have, absent the DNA database. That means that less crime happens in the first place (given that criminals tend to commit crimes in addition to those for which they ultimately get nailed), which means that there are less crimes which can be mistakenly “solved”. Yeah, pretty weak, but it it does stand to reason.
I think the privacy issues are a bit overblown. How is a cheek swab really different from the taking of fingerprints?
about 4 years ago
Sean:
That’s because a cheek swab can’t be used, if the information is sold to third parties, to discriminate against you. Also, my fingerprints won’t tell you who my dad is, my son is, or my brother is, DNA will give you a great idea who all three are. Indeed, some scientist have even suggested it will tell you my proclivity for right-handedness, sexual orientation, and even whether I like SUVs or Porsches. There is a basic human drive to keep such information private, once the DNA swab leaves my mouth I lose that ability to control that information and it is left in the hands of the state.
No offense meant, I don’t trust the State to keep anything private or to do anything well.
about 4 years ago
I hear you on that one karl. But the profile could be, by law, kept to a certain discrete bits of DNA.
about 4 years ago
Gideon,
The Judiciary Committee passed an amendment onto the bill removing the part that says someone gives a DNA sample upon arrest, and replacing it with someone giving a DNA sample upon conviction.
Convicts already give DNA samples, however the current practice is to give the sample when they are being released. The bill passed by committee as amended would simply change that practice to giving the sample upon conviction.
The bill that you linked to is the original format. It hasn’t been updated with the new amended language yet.
about 4 years ago
theeble – thanks for the info. If you are indeed correct, then that is good news. I’ll be on the lookout for the amended bill.
about 4 years ago
Don’t breathe a sigh of relief yet. The issue most likely will simply move to the national realm. John Walsh is interested in getting involved in the matter:
“We need to be uniformly collecting DNA profiles from both convicted AND accused criminals across the country.”