Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House
Proposition 69
DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding.
Should collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, be required with submission to state DNA database? Provides for funding.
- Official Summary, Pros & Cons
- Other Resources : Organizations , Articles, Reports, Links
- UU Commentaries
- Other California Ballot Propositions
Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.
Official Summary and Arguments
Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission to state DNA database. Provides for funding. Fiscal Impact: Net state cost to process DNA samples of potentially nearly $20 million annually when costs are fully realized. Local costs likely more than fully offset by revenues, with the additional revenues available for other DNA-related activities.
Official
Voter Information Guide (pdf)
Source: California Secretary of State / Elections and Voter Information
Campaign
Finance Information
Source: California Secretary of State / Cal-Access
A YES vote on this measure means:
The state would expand the collection of DNA samples to include all convicted felons, and some convicted nonfelons, as well as individuals arrested for certain offenses. Criminal penalties would increase to fund the expansion of DNA collection.
A NO vote on this measure means:
DNA samples would continue to be required only from persons convicted of serious felony offenses. Criminal penalties would not increase.
Arguments FOR Proposition 69
Requiring convicted felons and arrestees for rape/murder to submit DNA, Proposition 69 helps solve crime, prevents false imprisonment, and stop serial rapists/killers. 69 brings California law enforcement up to par with 34 states. Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Lockyer, law enforcement, defense attorneys. and victims' groups say vote yes!
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 69
Proposition 69 will not make you safer, but could trap your DNA in a criminal database. 69 treats thousands of Californians that are never charged with a crime just like the guilty. 69 risks your most sensitive, private information - your DNA. Protect your privacy. No on 69!
For Proposition 69
Californians for the DNA Fingerprint
Against Proposition 69
Nonpartisan Background and Analysis
Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports
Prop.
69 goes step too far on DNA: vote no to avoid risk to privacy
San Jose Mercury News, September 20, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Expanded
DNA collection urged
Contra Costa Times, July 23, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Prop.
69 expands DNA databse
The Press Democrat, August 15, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Proposition
69 could threaten privacy of DNA
San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2004
Last updated on September 30, 2004
UU Commentaries
No commentary was received prior to our deadline. Please add your opinion and voice to the discussion below.
"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you
don't know.
—Bertrand Russell
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither
does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in
such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air —however
slight—lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
—William O. Douglas
SUPPORTERS SAY California solves only 5% of crimes using DNA compared with 40% of crimes solved in states with larger DNA databases. They say that Proposition 69 protects society and privacy both, by making it a crime to use DNA for anything other than identification. A DNA sample taken during the booking process, along with fingerprints, is efficient and will help police with accurate investigations. The proposed expanded DNA database would be funded through a small increase in criminal penalties.
OPPONENTS SAY that taking DNA samples of people merely arrested undermines the principle of presumptive innocence and violates our constitutional right to be secure and protected from unreasonable search and seizure. They say that people wrongly accused would face a complicated legal process to have their DNA record expunged, without right of appeal. Comparing DNA to fingerprints trivializes the power of DNA, which also reveals information about relatives who share common genes. And, because of the numbers of people who would immediately qualify for DNA testing - more than half a million - opponents say that Proposition 69 could cost millions more than anticipated.
Could not connect to MySQL because: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)