My daughter sent me the following article the other day. She put in the subject line: Interesting. When my daughter says that something is interesting, what she really means is she knows I’ll have some sort of opinion about it.
I’ll summarize the article:
- Babies born in New Jersey have a blood sample taken from them within 48 hours so that it can be tested for rare and potentially serious conditions
- A small amount of dried blood remains and those records can be retained for 23 years
- Unable to get a warrant for a person of interest, the Police used a subpoena to obtain the blood sample so they could look for a DNA link to the suspect, the Father of a child born in NJ
The NJ supreme court did limit the power of authorities to use DNA evidence collected like this, but this doesn’t mean things like this will necessarily be over.
So the thought/discussion points for today are:
- Should blood screening be mandatory for newborns: should it be recommended but not required. Is it the states business to require this, or should it be left up to the parent? Is this a violation of the civil liberties of the child?
- Should everyone be required to have fingerprints and DNA evidence of file to prevent/solve crimes?
- Should you be able to get DNA evidence of a person of interest any way that you can?
- Is DNA evidence infallible?
- As science/tech gets more advanced, should we limit its uses and how?
- Is solving a crime more important than anything else?