NEW CASTLE —
Do you trust government?
Well, you better, thanks to a new U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives law enforcement — and ultimately others in government — the ability to access sweeping new information about individuals.
It comes courtesy of a high court decision this week that upholds the constitutionality of police procedures in states where DNA samples are collected from all people arrested for serious crimes. The fact these individuals are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, and the fact the DNA may not be needed in the case at hand, is apparently beside the point.
We suspect other states — including Pennsylvania — now will be inclined to adopt this practice.
The court reached its DNA ruling in one of its now-famous 5-4 decisions. But this time, there was an unusual split, with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joining most of the court’s conservatives in supporting the decision. But conservative Justice Antonin Scalia sided with the minority, arguing, “Make no mistake about it: Because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the court’s swing vote. Kennedy minimized any civil liberties concerns about the decision, writing, “Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Except that Kennedy’s dead wrong. And here’s why.
Fingerprints and photographs serve very limited purposes in terms of identifying individuals. They tell government nothing else about us.
But DNA tells everything about us. It is what we are. To dismiss the taking of DNA samples as nothing more than another identification technique ignores a host of disturbing ramifications.
And some of these were raised by Scalia in his written dissent. In particular, he warned that Monday’s ruling, technically limited to “serious” crimes, undoubtedly will be expanded to others should governments decide it’s desirable to do so.
“If you believe that a DNA search will identify someone arrested for bank robbery,” Scalia said, “you must believe that it will identify someone arrested for running a red light.”
At a time when the public has reasons for being suspicious of government intentions and the scope of its power — ranging from IRS probes to the seizing of news organization phone records — you would think the court might see a flaw in widespread DNA collections.
Instead, Americans are given another reason to wonder what government will do with all that information.
NEW CASTLE —
Do you trust government?
Our Opinion: College admission test undergoes real-world changes
In the realm of education, the Scholastic Aptitude Test has something of a make-or-break reputation. That’s because a student’s SAT results — or those of its counterpart, the ACT — are a major factor in the admissions decisions by colleges.
Our Opinion: Discovery of ancient virus raises concerns
In the 1951 science fiction classic “The Thing from Another World,” a spacecraft crashes in the arctic. A group of humans investigates and discovers an alien buried in ice. Once thawed, the alien poses a threat to the humans, who eventually destroy it.
Our Opinion: Some consumers pay price of changing power suppliers
Choice may be good, but an informed choice is even better. That’s the conclusion we draw from reports here in Lawrence County and elsewhere around Pennsylvania about some residents and businesses receiving electric bills that are substantially higher than normal.
Our Opinion: The West has decisions to make, and Russia may pay price
Let’s begin by acknowledging that the United States will not be sending troops to Ukraine. That country — despite an incursion by Russian troops — is not of vital strategic interest to America, and there is no treaty obligation to defend it.
Our Opinion: Giving Laurel teachers free tuition is inherently unfair
Whenever government hands out perks to its own, red flags are raised. And arguments that they cost taxpayers nothing can ring a little hollow.
Our Opinion:Tax reform proposal sounds good, but may lack support
If there’s one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Washington agree on, it’s that America needs a simpler tax code.
Our Opinion: Obama administration targets junk food ads
We anticipate some controversy over the Obama administration’s proposed new rules regarding schools and junk food. Mainly it will come from those who complain about federal meddling in public education.
Our Opinion: After five years, Jordan Brown case continues — sadly for all
It’s not unusual for newspapers to look back on major news events when key anniversaries come about. So it was that the New Castle News has been running articles on the fifth anniversary of the 2009 slaying of Kenzie Houk, and the subsequent arrest of Jordan Brown for the crime.
Our Opinion: Expanding gambling option falls flat on its face
Perhaps it’s good that every now and then, government gains a glimpse of the real world. And so it is with Pennsylvania’s latest effort to squeeze the goose that lays the golden gambling eggs.
Our Opinion: Examination of Sandusky case hurt by email deletions
How long should government keep records before throwing them away? It’s a question that became more than academic in Pennsylvania, in light of the Jerry Sandusky saga.
- More Editorials Headlines
- Our Opinion: College admission test undergoes real-world changes