State to require DNA sample for misdemeanors?
The Stranger's Josh Feit, who has been covering the political goings-on down in Olympia for SLOG, posted a brief update that caught our collective eye this morning.
It's in reference to HB 2713, described on the Legislature's official website as a bill aimed at "providing for broader collection of biological samples for the DNA identification of convicted sex offenders and other persons."
One can't help but raise their eyebrows at the final three words conveniently tucked into the end of that statement: "and other persons." In fact, upon further inspection, it turns out that the majority of the misdemeanors covered by HB 2713 aren't sex crimes at all.
According to Feit's post - which appears to have lifted the text directly from the bill itself - they include anyone convicted of the following:
Problem is, of the 12 crimes covered by the bill, only two of them - "custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree" and "sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree" - could make a legitimate case for DNA collection. But animal cruelty? Fourth degree assault? Violation of protection orders?
And what about "permitting prostitution"? Just what does that mean, and why does it warrant a DNA sample? As SLOG commenter Levislade notes:
As Feit notes, this is all part of the Democrats' attempt to "look/get tough on crime." Apparently that means taking a page out of the Republican handbook: avoid the challenges associated with confronting serious crimes head-on, so that we can all pat ourselves on the backs for "getting tough" on the petty ones.
It's in reference to HB 2713, described on the Legislature's official website as a bill aimed at "providing for broader collection of biological samples for the DNA identification of convicted sex offenders and other persons."
One can't help but raise their eyebrows at the final three words conveniently tucked into the end of that statement: "and other persons." In fact, upon further inspection, it turns out that the majority of the misdemeanors covered by HB 2713 aren't sex crimes at all.
According to Feit's post - which appears to have lifted the text directly from the bill itself - they include anyone convicted of the following:
We at Seattle Crime Blog are generally opposed to the idea of the government storing DNA samples of anyone in the criminal justice system. But we'll concede that the DNA of certain sex offenders - serial rapists, for example - should be on file somewhere so that if those likely to re-offend actually do, it will be easier to track them.
- Animal cruelty in the second degree;
- Assault in the fourth degree;
- Custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree;
- Failure to register;
- Indecent exposure;
- Patronizing a prostitute;
- Permitting commercial sexual abuse of a minor;
- Permitting prostitution;
- Prostitution;
- Sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree;
- Unlawful harboring of a minor;
- and Violation of certain protection orders.
Problem is, of the 12 crimes covered by the bill, only two of them - "custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree" and "sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree" - could make a legitimate case for DNA collection. But animal cruelty? Fourth degree assault? Violation of protection orders?
And what about "permitting prostitution"? Just what does that mean, and why does it warrant a DNA sample? As SLOG commenter Levislade notes:
Permitting prostitution? Isn't anyone who drives down Aurora without calling the police guilty of that?Levislade is making a joke, of course...but it does raise some interesting questions as to why seemingly non-violent criminal acts require submission of DNA.
As Feit notes, this is all part of the Democrats' attempt to "look/get tough on crime." Apparently that means taking a page out of the Republican handbook: avoid the challenges associated with confronting serious crimes head-on, so that we can all pat ourselves on the backs for "getting tough" on the petty ones.
