The modern establishment has shown itself unable to protect us from crime
This is provably false.
DNA’s impact on property crime is tremendous and historically unprecedented. Ubiquitous surveillance, cashless transactions, and technology based ownership tagging are contributing factors, but DNA is absolutely massive.
The traditional clearance rate (arrest) for property crimes such as burglary and auto-theft is just under 8%. In jurisdictions that actively collect DNA from the scenes of property crimes, the clearance rate is just south of 16%.
Simply put, if you commit a burglary or auto theft, and leave DNA at the scene (blood on a broken window, saliva on a sandwich, urine/semen, sweat on the driver’s seat of the car, etc), and are arrested at any time prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for that crime, anywhere in the country, you can expect to be charged and convicted.
The importance of this to crime prevention is impossible to understate, especially when used synergistically with the aforementioned technologies (CCTV and traffic cameras identify vehicles leaving the scene, identity-based tags on equipment and cashless transactions mean that there is much less to steal, cellphone tracking means that the crook either leaves it at home and is not in touch with his lookouts or is tracked, etc). Furthermore, as violent criminals are more likely to have their (or their relatives) data in the DNA database, and to be picked up for unrelated offenses (such as fights in bars or general bad behavior) this method catches more violent criminals than nonviolent criminals. And, the icing on the cake, criminals who are “criminally versatile” (usually psychopaths) frequently engage in property crimes such as burglarly and car theft, so this probably positively affects the rate on other classes of crime (kidnapping, murder, arson, reckless driving, etc).
Selective processing of DNA, slow processing infrastructure, etc are issues related to lack of access to technology by communities, not flaws in the technology itself.
Sources on the facts I reference are a body of work done by the Urban Institute to answer these questions.
This is provably false.
DNA’s impact on property crime is tremendous and historically unprecedented. Ubiquitous surveillance, cashless transactions, and technology based ownership tagging are contributing factors, but DNA is absolutely massive.
The traditional clearance rate (arrest) for property crimes such as burglary and auto-theft is just under 8%. In jurisdictions that actively collect DNA from the scenes of property crimes, the clearance rate is just south of 16%.
Simply put, if you commit a burglary or auto theft, and leave DNA at the scene (blood on a broken window, saliva on a sandwich, urine/semen, sweat on the driver’s seat of the car, etc), and are arrested at any time prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for that crime, anywhere in the country, you can expect to be charged and convicted.
The importance of this to crime prevention is impossible to understate, especially when used synergistically with the aforementioned technologies (CCTV and traffic cameras identify vehicles leaving the scene, identity-based tags on equipment and cashless transactions mean that there is much less to steal, cellphone tracking means that the crook either leaves it at home and is not in touch with his lookouts or is tracked, etc). Furthermore, as violent criminals are more likely to have their (or their relatives) data in the DNA database, and to be picked up for unrelated offenses (such as fights in bars or general bad behavior) this method catches more violent criminals than nonviolent criminals. And, the icing on the cake, criminals who are “criminally versatile” (usually psychopaths) frequently engage in property crimes such as burglarly and car theft, so this probably positively affects the rate on other classes of crime (kidnapping, murder, arson, reckless driving, etc).
Selective processing of DNA, slow processing infrastructure, etc are issues related to lack of access to technology by communities, not flaws in the technology itself.
Sources on the facts I reference are a body of work done by the Urban Institute to answer these questions.