This is an issue with two different sides to it
Supporters of involuntary DNA collection from all arrestees often argue the following points:
Solving crimes: Collecting DNA samples from all arrestees can potentially help solve crimes by establishing a database that aids in identifying individuals involved in unsolved cases. This could contribute to public safety and justice.
Deterrence: The knowledge that DNA samples will be collected upon arrest might act as a deterrent to potential criminals, preventing them from engaging in illegal activities due to the increased likelihood of being caught.
Identification errors: DNA evidence can play a crucial role in exonerating innocent individuals who have been wrongfully accused or convicted of crimes. Collecting DNA samples from all arrestees could help identify and clear innocent people at an early stage of the legal process.
On the other hand, opponents of involuntary DNA collection raise the following concerns:
Invasion of privacy: Involuntary DNA collection can be seen as a violation of an individual's privacy rights. It involves gathering sensitive and personal information without their consent, potentially undermining their autonomy and dignity.
Presumption of guilt: Collecting DNA samples from all arrestees assumes that they are guilty or suspects, contradicting the fundamental legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This presumption can stigmatize individuals who have not yet been convicted of any crime.
Slippery slope: Implementing widespread involuntary DNA collection raises concerns about the potential for abuse and misuse of the collected genetic information. It could lead to expanded surveillance capabilities or unauthorized use of DNA data for purposes beyond the scope of law enforcement.
Moral acceptability can differ among individuals and communities based on their cultural, ethical, and legal perspectives
Also different jurisdictions may have varying laws regarding how DNA is collected