Ensuring safety and security for all citizens is the key priority of state authorities, which is why preventing crime remains a crucial item on the political agenda. However, the recent suggestion concerning DNA-based identification of convicts may spark controversy due to its possible ethical ramifications. In his 2006 article, Danny Hakim addresses a rather controversial issue of using DNA to identify possible suspects among known convicts in case of a crime (Hakim, 2006). Although the use of DNA-based identification of criminals does increase security, it feels like a tremendous violation of criminals’ basic human rights, particularly, that of privacy and personal dignity. It may amplify the stigma, thus preventing former criminals from ever reintegrating into the community.
However, even though the proposed solution appears to be drastic, it is the only possible measure that currently allows testing an individual’s involvement in a crime and receiving immediate results. Since there are strong indications that a person who has a criminal record is likely to offend again, it is vital to run the search within the existing catalog of offenders first (Duwe & McNeeley, 2020). Therefore, the proposed solution seems to be reasonable as a means of safeguarding citizens. Although it clashes violently with the current provisions concerning human rights, such as the right for privacy and dignity, it allows maintaining the vial right for security to which every citizen is entitled. Thus, for the time being, the proposed solution could work until a more effective and less intrusive method is incorporated into the present-day crime prevention policies.
Adding to the issue chosen, one might suggest that the current legal system should provide people released from prisons with an opportunity to reintegrate into their corresponding community. Presently, there is a viable threat that released convicts will return to crime due to their past connections and the lack of employment opportunities (Duwe & McNeeley, 2020). However, even if the described issue is addressed, the level of trust toward former criminals is likely to remain low. Thus, the idea of rehabilitation of criminals must be promoted both on the level of state policies and sociocultural norms. Specifically, criminals need to be viewed as people that can change and abandon their criminal past. As a result, the issue of trust will be eventually addressed by allowing former criminals to cut ties with their past and the people that have affected their past choices. Furthermore, policies that will increase employment opportunities for former convicts should be introduced. As a result, the issue of rebuilding trust between former criminals and community members will be addressed, which, in turn, will reduce the necessity for introducing DNA tests as a means of increasing the safety within the community.
Overall, the situation seems to be very ambiguous and located in a morally grey area. While the idea of using DNA as the tool for verifying the involvement of potential suspects in certain criminal cases does provide tremendous opportunities for solving a case promptly and preventing criminals from attacking new victims, it does clash with the existing standards for human rights. Therefore, it should not be regarded as a means of preventing crime and curbing the rates of violence, and preventing crime. Although it could be used temporarily as a tool for ensuring community safety, it needs to be replaced with a less controversial solution as soon as other opportunities emerge.
References
Duwe, G., & McNeeley, S. (2020). The effects of prison labor on institutional misconduct, postprison employment, and recidivism. Corrections, 5(2), 89-108.
Hakim, D. (2006). Report urges requiring all convicts to give DNA New York Times. Web.