Frustrated in their attempt to solve the murder-rape of socialite Christa Worthington, police in sleepy Truro, Massachusetts conducted a DNA-dragnet, targeting roughly 800 adult males living in the Cape Cod town. The ACLU cried foul. "The mass collection of DNA samples by police is a serious intrusion on personal privacy that has proven to be both ineffective and wasteful," John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts ACLU, explained in January. Though the DNA round-up was voluntary, the ACLU claims the public pressure to comply amounted to coercion.
Several years after first gathering DNA, and several months after expanding the collection to hundreds of citizens, Truro police say they have their man. Thursday night they arrested Christopher McCowen, a garbageman with a criminal past. In the wake of the Truro police's Worthington-case victory, the ACLU is blaming the DNA sweep for hindering law-enforcement efforts and bizarrely claiming that since McCowen's DNA wasn't collected in January's mass-collection (the police obtained it last year) they were right all along about the futility of DNA sweeps. However distasteful one finds their methods, the Truro police's methods closed this case. No amount of ACLU dissembling changes this fact. The ACLU was dead-wrong when it claimed that DNA sweeps are "ineffective." A DNA sweep, albeit a more targeted one than January's, led to the arrest of Christopher McCowen.
The ACLU, which has applauded uses of DNA when it has exonerated the accused, jeered its use when it stood to identify the guilty. Forgive the rest of us if we infer from this that the ACLU cares about perpetrators more than victims. The round-up in Truro was voluntary, after all.
Nevertheless, the case raises interesting questions. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment prohibit compulsory DNA dragnets? Does an objection to submit DNA to the police automatically make one a suspect? Isn't there a legitimate concern that DNA collected in such round-ups might be stored much like fingerprints? Is there a prudent line--somewhere between mandated DNA samples at birth and voluntary collections when situations dictate--that can be drawn to both limit state power and aid law enforcement? Shouldn't the success story in Truro make citizens more apt to cooperate with police employing such measures?
"The ACLU, which has applauded uses of DNA when it has exonerated the accused, jeered its use when it stood to identify the guilty."
This is typical leftist crap. They always object to easiest possible ways to catch the criminals. Thats why they object to racial profiling.
It would make sense that the ACLU get intimately involved with this beaten cop killer in Providence.
As the murderous monster's family says: "he's a victim too".
Do people have no shame anymore?
Check out this article about Ted Nugent...he's the man!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7535675/
I wonder if Nugent is on the ACLU's most wanted list. He's a Nazi gun-toting Fascist ya know!
Mr. Flynn: Being the ultra-right winged biggot that you are, you must be an "Intellectual Moron" to believe that the left "Hates America" (the most stringent lie eminating from the authoritative right.) Attempting to debate or reason with you would be an intellectual waste of time!
Robert's great words of wisdom! Spoken like a true Liberal.
Lighten up Robert, it's sounds like the wrath of Khan has gone to your head. Star Trek will be back on the air before you know it. Try and stay positive.
