Kirk Bloodsworth is at the front of a lobbying effort to persuade Congress to pass the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. As you may know, Bloodsworth was the first former death row inmate who was exonerated through use of DNA evidence. The bill calls for over a billion dollars in federal monies toward the testing of rape kits and other crime scene evidence and to make crime labs more efficient nationwide. It will also allow for post-conviction DNA testing and allow inmates to attempt to prove their innocence through DNA analysis.

I recall reading in the past that this bill may have also included a provision related to efforts to backlog DNA and keep a record of every the DNA of every person arrested for a violent crime in order to use it to track future crimes. From a civil liberties standpoint, I'm not sure what I think of that (I have a good idea though). I'm not sure yet how I think that compares to a fingerprint and the assurance against self-incriminating (although some would argue that the 5th amendment only applies to "testimony"). This is not to mention the constitutional assurances provided under the 4th amendment (search and seizure) and the right to privacy. Obviously, innocent people get arrested for violent crimes. Why should their DNA be on file and their privacy invaded because they were falsely arrested? After all, you don't lose your civil rights (in theory) until you are CONVICTED of a felony (2d amendment rights, right to vote, right to serve on jury, etc.). So, why should you lose the right to keep your DNA private? What level of probable cause should be needed to secure such a sample? Thoughts anyone?

Victims Push for DNA Bill On Hill