Liberals Wrong on DNA Evidence
Libertarianz has no problem with the proposal for police to use DNA evidence in burglary cases providing proper protocols for due process are put in place.
"Why can't people get some basic facts through their heads?" wonders Libertarianz Spokesman Robert Winefield.
It is the job of police to catch offenders. This will help them do that.
2) The police must demonstrate 'reasonable suspicion' to be granted permission to obtain DNA from a suspect; meaning they must have more than: "he was alive and on planet earth on the day of the crime your honour".
3) Certainly your body is your own property, but so is your house and land. Yet the police can properly obtain warrants to forcibly search both, without complaints about this. Warrants can also be obtained for legitimate strip and cavity searches - same argument.
4) Suspects who wishes to prove their innocence will undoubtedly be delighted for the opportunity of making their DNA available to rule them out, providing it is destroyed afterwards.
5) Lawyers contesting this because DNA evidence is costly for the defence to double check and debunk should check their science.
6) Remember too that there are circumstances where DNA evidence won't convict, such as when the suspect works at the crime scene.
"To prove something beyond reasonable doubt is the aim, and DNA evidence is only a piece in this evidential puzzle," concludes Winefield. "If life and property can be protected by clearly exposing perpetrators, then we are all for it."