Bioethical Issue: Mandatory DNA Fingerprinting.
Science has come a long way in DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting isn't just a sample of your fingerprint; it is a sample of your DNA. "DNA fingerprinting is a test to identify and evaluate genetic information" (webmd.com) There are definite up sides to this as well as down sides. .
In the book, Essentials to biology, it states "Arthur Lee Whitfield has served 22 years of a 63-year sentence for rape when he was notified that he had gained the right to use DNA fingerprinting to establish his innocence. Luckily, biological evidence had been saved form his jury trial, and DNA fingerprinting shower that his DNA did not match that of the rapist. However, this DNA did match that of another inmate, who was serving a life sentence for an unrelated rape conviction." This is a fantastic example of how DNA mandatory fingerprinting would be great to have. Without it, this man would have spent most of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit, and that is just unacceptable. DNA fingerprinting could help save families of victims a lot of anguish and torment of not knowing and put more criminals behind. If you ask me, that's something great this country needs! However, there are some downsides to this.
"Those who are against mandatory DNA testing for convicted criminals say that you are betraying the human rights of the criminal. They feel that it is wrong to take this very personal information and place it into a database. Privacy can be compromised as questions are raised about who has access to this information" (livinghealthy360.com). I get their point. It's so important that the human rights of ANY person be upheld. Especially in todays world, where it is said that the government can already do so much that it couldn't in the past. "Those against it also worry that such a DNA database would be utilized for all the wrong reasons.
