What me worry !! I didn't do nuthin'

Your opinion please.

Story here. Shorter version. 18 year old with some younger buddies, while drinking, hatches the idea to order a pizza and then rob the deliver guy. Caught, tried and convicted the 18 year old, with no previous criminal record, gets a 18 month conditional sentence ( first 6 months under house arreest ) and 50 hours community service. I'm ok with that, it's maybe even a little too light.

The part I would like your opinion on is one other condition of his sentence.
"he must ... provide a sample of his DNA for the national databank."

Just what is the NATIONAL DNA DATA BANK, you ask. Federal legislation established it, and expanded on it and it is now being advocated to include people arrested, but not yet convicted, of a crime. This is being advocated by Toronto's Police Chief.

A DNA sample is, in essense, just a better fingerprint. We think nothing of the fact that criminals, and suspected criminals, are fingerprinted. There are two levels of offense that trigger a DNA sample to be collected. A primary designated offense - where a sample must be collected and a secondary designated offence - where upon request by the Crown a judge can order a sample taken. I haven't been able to find a listing of the offences that were originally included in the legislation. I have found a listing of the offenses added in 2005:

Offences added to the list of primary designated offences include: sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, causing bodily harm with intent – air gun or pistol, administering a noxious thing with intention to endanger life or cause bodily harm, overcoming resistance to the commission of an offence, robbery (moved from the list of secondary designated offences), extortion, breaking and entering into a dwelling-house (moved from the list of secondary designated offences), and intimidation of a justice system participant or journalist. Other offences added to the list of primary designated offences include those concerning child pornography (removed from the list of secondary offences), the luring of a child, procuring, aggravated offences related to under-age prostitutes, and securing the sexual services of a person under the age of eighteen.

adds a number of offences to the list of secondary designated offences. The new offences include: criminal harassment, uttering threats, breaking and entering into a place other than a dwelling-house, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, intimidation, arson – damage to property, arson for a fraudulent purpose, participation in activities of a criminal organization, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, and instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization.

The FAQ from the Federal Government DNA Database site has a couple of interesting points.

Q.22 Is there any possibility that amendments to the Act may permit the taking of samples upon arrest in the next 5-10 years?

Answer #22
There will be a five year review of the Act (s.13 DNA ID Act) at which time it is likely that collection at the time of arrest will be revisited if raised by the police community.

Q.31 Why not collect DNA samples at time of arrest as opposed to time of conviction?

Answer #31
Legal advice suggests that collecting samples at the time of arrest raises serious Constitutional concerns. In addition, the current DNA warrant scheme (under s.487.05 of the Criminal Code) allows police to obtain DNA samples from suspects during the course of a criminal investigation either prior to, at the time of, or after arrest. There will be a five-year review of the legislation, at which time collection at the time of arrest may be revisited.

This was going to be a little post in the "Bar & Grill". Then I had to do a bit of digging to get background on the DNA Database, so I went the journal route.

Is this a 'thin end of the wedge' situation ? The Canadian Bar Association has some reservations. Are we moving to having your DNA sampled, and kept indefinitely, and shared with any justice system in the world, every time you are picked up by the fuzz ? Is this a good thing ? Will it mean that more guilty people are convicted and more innocent people are exonerated ?

My concern is that while it is at the Crown's descretion to ask for a DNA sample, and at the judge's descretion to grant the request, the process seems to happen pretty easily for a first time offence of a none sexual nature, committed by a drinker.