There are times when you hear something and know it's just inherently wrong. What is it this time?
This raises a significant question for me: When is it warranted to gather your personal and extremely private information? Upon arrest? Or upon conviction?
|Move over finger prints and mug shots, here come the cheek swabs|
It's been standard practice to grab mug shots of those who are arrested and charged in certain crimes, and a ton of celebrity gossip websites and local media alike are grateful for the images of fresh caught "criminals".
As for fingerprints ... It's also been standard practice and surely upheld to allow for finger printing of detained "suspects". These get put into a database and used as a reference in hopes of solving other crimes.
Hell, the courts even recently ruled that you can be stripped searched--even being processed through a holding cell when arrested and charged in a crime.
But, something that is regretfully forgotten is this notion of innocent until proven guilty. We've lost that as a society, I think.
Many people are arrested and processed in holding cells that never get convicted of things, and in my opinion (granted I'm not a supreme court judge), even finger prints and mug shots of un-convicted people should be scrubbed!
Now, If someone is convicted of a violent crime, then they should be properly put "into the system."
What's really frightening is the most recent ruling allowing for DNA swabs to be gathered of arrested people is being ruled constitutional by at the "majority" of the supreme court.
That's 5 people who are deciding that the state can take your DNA.