DNA samples will help solve crimes

Colorado in 2010 began requiring DNA testing of all felons and for a small list of criminal misdemeanors, a move that began providing matches to unsolved sexual assaults, robberies, burglaries and other crimes within months.

Now, Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, is proposing the state go further by requiring DNA testing for all criminal misdemeanor convictions. We strongly support this idea and believe it could help catch rapists, burglars and even murderers going forward.

We especially support the idea now that House Bill 1251 has been considerably narrowed from its original version, which would have required DNA testing for all misdemeanor convictions, including a long list of minor violations hardly predictive of additional criminal behavior.

First, consider the results that have occurred since Colorado began requiring DNA testing for felony arrests and for six misdemeanor offenses. According to the Denver District Attorney's office, from December 2010 to March 2013, just in Denver, there were 187 DNA hits on samples taken upon arrest, and of those, 29 have been matched to sexual assaults and four to murders.

One of those cases included the March 21 charging of Eddie Simon on suspicion of kidnapping and raping a 20-year-old woman in 2001. Simon had been arrested earlier this year on felony drug charges and his DNA was taken at that time, leading to the potential break in the cold case.

But it's clear that expanding the DNA testing to serious misdemeanors will catch dangerous criminals as well. In New York, which in 2006 expanded the testing to certain misdemeanors such as shoplifting, assault and trespassing, DNA samples of people convicted of petty larceny were linked to some 48 murders and 220 sexual assaults, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Some critics of Pabon's bill say it would create an indiscriminate dragnet that would invade the privacy of many people convicted of extremely low-level offenses. Yet we think Pabon has largely addressed this concern by first limiting the bill only to Class 1 misdemeanors and then further winnowing that list to only certain Class 1 misdemeanors.

This list includes more serious offenses such as third-degree assault, various sexual assault offenses, forgery, indecent exposure, wiretapping, possession of an illegal weapon and various other crimes that could indicate future criminal behavior.

No doubt, some critics will point to certain other offenses included on this narrowed list, such as videotaping a movie inside a theater, and say they shouldn't necessitate a DNA sample. But we think these cases will be relatively rare, and the far greater number of more serious offenses justifies taking the DNA.

The bill should be passed into law.

See the original post here:
DNA samples will help solve crimes