Maryland Will Violate Rights to Get DNA
by Big Dog on Jan 30, 2008 at 23:18 Political
The Governor of Maryland is proposing that the state allow DNA to be collected from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted. As it stands now, a person must first be convicted before DNA may be collected and this is how it should remain. Scott D. Shellenberger, the state’s attorney for Baltimore County, has written a piece in the Baltimore Sun indicating that the Governor’s proposal should be passed. He states that this legislation could prevent crime and he cites a case where a man raped a woman and then raped a young girl. It turns out this guy had been arrested but not convicted in the past so there was no DNA on file. Shellenberger contends that if we had collected his DNA the first time he would have been identified after the first rape and the young girl would not have been the victim. This is obviously true but it does not negate the fact that collecting the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime violates their Constitutional rights. I submit that state’s attorneys failing to do their jobs are more dangerous than not collecting DNA and I will address that later.
People have an expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches. Taking DNA from a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, Minnesota’s Court of Appeals held that taking DNA from juveniles and adults who have had a probable cause determination on a charged offense but who have not been convicted violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.[1] It is also important to note that nothing would stop the state and its law enforcement agencies from using DNA for DNA dragnets or from deeper analysis to determine what maladies might affect people. Mr. Shellenberger contends that they don’t need to look at all parts of the DNA, just the parts used to identify. Just because they don’t need to does not mean they will not. The Governor will eventually try to force universal health care on us. What would stop the state from passing a law allowing them to use the DNA to determine eligibility or fee schedules or to see if a person would be a liability in a job? Once they have it, they can pass laws to abuse it in any manner they wish.
It is terrible that the young girl was raped. I am willing to bet that the offender had more than a few brushes with the law and was probably incarcerated at one time. It seems that they could have collected what they needed at that time but let’s assume this guy had never been convicted. Should the state be allowed to conduct a search for DNA without probable cause from a person who is presumed innocent? They cannot be collecting the DNA to connect him with the current crime because they have already arrested him which means sufficient evidence existed for the arrest. Therefore, they are trying to collect (and search as determined by our courts) for evidence linking the suspect to other crimes (or for that use in the future) though no probable cause exists for the collection. Attorney Shellenberger is advocating violating the Fourth Amendment in order to catch criminals. It is a shame that the young girl was raped and that others are victims of crime but violating the rights of people to catch them makes the people in our legal system no better than the criminals.
Now, I contend that state’s attorneys are more of a danger than the failure to collect DNA. It is the people who run our legal systems who allow criminals to go free instead of putting them in jail. Shellenberger used the case of the young girl but how about the case of Maryland State Trooper Theodore Wolf? He was the state police officer killed by two men who were out on bond awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of assault and weapons charges (in New York). How about Baltimore City police Detective Troy Lamont Chesley who was shot and killed in a robbery attempt by a 21 year old with at least 17 arrests on his record and who was due in court the day after the murder on a past gun charge? If he had been in jail Chesley would be alive. How many arrests does it take for state’s attorneys to get the picture? Of course judges play into this picture so the entire legal system is to blame.
The recidivism rate for violent offenders is well over 50% and yet state’s attorney’s and judges let these people out of jail all the time. If we kept them in jail we could reduce violent crime by at least 50%. While Mr. Shellenberger is advocating violating our rights perhaps he can tell us why it is that child sex offenders (who have a near 100% recidivism rate) are continually released so that they can sexually abuse and murder young children. One thing is likely in all the cases I cite, the people had already been convicted so their DNA was probably on file and yet it did not prevent them from committing other crimes. What allowed them to do so was a legal system that let them out of jail and state’s attorneys that accept plea deals which put violent people back on the street.
Collecting DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime is a violation of their rights just as it would be to start collecting DNA from newborns to establish a database for the future. As Americans we have a certain expectation of privacy and we expect that our rights will not be violated. It is unfortunate that the very same state’s attorneys and judges who let people go free when their rights are violated would violate the rights of people presumed innocent in order to do their jobs.
Mr. Shellenberger, the Governor is wrong on this issue and you are wrong to support it. Violating a person’s rights is never appropriate.
If you want to prevent crime how about doing your job?
[1]American Constitution Society
Tags: dna, fourth amendment, legal abuses, rights
Big Dog – I am not really disagreeing with you, but isn’t it true that if you are arrested for a crime and later found not guilty you can petition the court to have everything (fingerprints, court records, police records, court transcripts, detention center records, witness statements) removed? As if it never happened. Wouldn’t the same hold true for DNA? Of course one would have to have faith that the government will do it.
A little eye opener for ya “Big Puppy”… the facts!!
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
There are many misconceptions about sexual offenses, sexual offense victims, and sex offenders in our society. Much has been learned about these behaviors and populations in the past decade and this information is being used to develop more effective criminal justice interventions throughout the country. This document serves to inform citizens, policy makers, and practitioners about sex offenders and their victims, addressing the facts that underlie common assumptions both true and false in this rapidly evolving field.
Myth:
“Most sex offenders reoffend.”
Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.
Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:
# child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
# rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.
Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).
Individual characteristics of the crimes further distinguish recidivism rates. For instance, victim gender and relation to the offender have been found to impact recidivism rates. In a 1995 study, researchers found that offenders who had extrafamilial female victims had a recidivism rate of 18% and those who had extrafamilial male victims recidivated at a rate of 35%. This same study found a recidivism rate for incest offenders to be approximately 9% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).
It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
It is important to note that not all sex crimes are solved or result in arrest and only a fraction of sex offenses are reported to police. The reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data (i.e., rearrest or reconviction rates) obviously omits offenses that are not cleared through an arrest (and thereby cannot be attributed to any individual offender) or those that are never reported to the police. For a variety of reasons, many victims of sexual assault are reluctant to invoke the criminal justice process and do not report their victimization to the police. For these reasons, relying on rearrest and reconviction data underestimates actual reoffense numbers.
Contact
Center for Sex Offender Management
8403 Colesville Rd., Suite 720
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 589-9383
Fax: (301) 589-3505
E-mail: askcsom@csom.org
Internet: http://www.csom.org
As your data suggests, many sex crimes are not reported. Child sex offenders continue to commit sex crimes with children until they are caught so there are multiple offenses.
There is a difference between recidivism and reconviction. As we know, many offenders are caught and released or not convicted but that does not mean they did not commit the crime.
Adults (particularly men) who have sex with children are not cured just because they served time in jail and this is why they are not allowed near children and must register. A murderer does not have to register if released but a sex offender does because they will do it again.
All child sex offenders will offend again if given the opportunity. They should be sent to jail for life.
As for the facts vs myths that is all well and good and I suppose that we can do anything with numbers. You present this as if sex offenders (especially child sex offenders) are misunderstood and we should understand them. I think they should be jailed for life and if one ever molested my child or grandchild I would kill the bastard myself.
I hope that gives YOU the facts. Keep the freaks in jail and away from kids and they won’t get killed.
This is from The leadership council on child abuse and interpersonal violence
The vast majority of sex offenses are never reported. For instance, the National Women’s Study surveyed a representative sample of over 4,000 adult women in the United States . Three hundred forty-one (8.5%) of these women were victims of at least one rape prior to the age of 18; however, only 11.9% of these women reported the rape to authorities (Hanson et al., 1990). And it must be remembered, of the few offenses reported, an even smaller number result in convictions.
The problem with using recidivism rates to determine the rate of reoffending is readily apparent when considering the following example. If 100% of released molesters reoffended, but the rate of reporting is only 12%, and the conviction rate is half of this, than the recidivism rate would be reported as only 6%!
Prentky et al. (1997) examined recidivism rates on 115 child molesters and concluded that: (1) child molesters remain at risk to reoffend long after their discharge, in some cases 15-20 years after discharge; (2) there is a marked underestimation of recidivism rates.
Likewise, a review by the American Psychological Association (2003) concluded that “the research demonstrates that even sexual offenses against children that occurred long ago evince a continuing risk of recidivism by the offender.”