The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act came into force in September 2010. This law allows police to take DNA samples from a wider range of serious offenders, such as anyone they intend to charge with an imprison-able offence.
Just imagine though, how many crimes would be solved and how many perpetrators of heinous crimes would be brought to justice, if Police were able to search a database of DNA taken at birth from every New Zealander or new immigrant?
Would this be crossing the line between civic rights and civil rights? Where do you draw that line? Is protecting society more important than some civil rights? What harm could it do?
Some would argue that taking DNA from every New Zealander at birth would be contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against unreasonable search and seizure. During the process of this legislation one politician said taking DNA from a person not being charged would be a "gross assault" on that person. Knowing your chances of getting caught just got higher might even act as a bigger deterrent to criminals?
DNA profiling has revolutionised the way the police solve crimes. In 2000, a study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research pointed out that, "Of all DNA profiles loaded from unsolved crimes, 33 per cent match an individual whose DNA profile is present on the National DNA Database. In addition, 21% of unsolved crimes loaded match another crime present on the Crime Sample Database."
There are also other positive aspects, in America DNA testing has cleared approximately 25 per cent of sexual assault suspects whose samples were sent to the FBI.
Convictions have also been overturned and innocent people released from jail because of DNA testing. DNA profiling was paramount in the capture of serial rapist Malcolm Rewa and over 3000 men who fitted the Police offender profile were excluded with this tool after voluntary samples were obtained.
There are however those who have concerns over the security of DNA samples. For example, DNA could be 'planted' by police to ensure a prosecution. It could also be used for other purposes yet to be discovered which could amount to an invasion of privacy.
Insurance companies could get access to this information and refuse to insure people, or employers may deny employment. Future governments could use it to deny the right to have children because new DNA developments could make it possible to detect the likelihood of criminal offending?
These are all aspects that need to be seriously considered if such a process were to take place, but aspects that could surely be protected with the appropriate legislation and security.
One stumbling block that has faced European governments on DNA testing is a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. In 2008 it ruled unanimously that keeping the genetic information of innocent people indefinitely was a violation of the right to privacy.
Although privacy is a right in a democratic society, it is certainly not an absolute right. Some might consider DNA profiling of the whole country as the first step towards a totalitarian state, but just perhaps, this concept, along with the Search and Surveillance Bill passing the final hurdle, could be the first steps towards a state that will not tolerate crime -a state that will do everything possible to protect the innocent.
* Steve Baron is the Founder of Better Democracy NZ, a former businessman and Waipa Mayoral candidate.
