[GRAPHIC: Weather, headlines, sports scores]
JOSEPH NEUBERGER: There is nothing more inimical to our own identity as our genetic makeup. Our DNA is essentially who we are. It talks about our color, our height, our, our, our essence.
That DNA molecule being in the possession of the police upon arrest is something that I feel is a far too invasive invasion of our privacy, far more than fingerprints.
However, I will say fingerprinting in and of itself is not invasive or innocuous at all. Fingerprinting is definitely an issue, especially for those who have never been charged before and are facing a crime for the first time--
JOSEPH NEUBERGER: --and may in fact be wrongly accused. Cases where DNA evidence can be obtained lawfully, there is a proper scheme and structure set up in the criminal code now, devised by Parliament, which requires grounds in order to obtain a warrant to get DNA of the suspect. And that's exactly what's in, in place to protect your rights, my rights and everybody else.
We have to remember that when there is a heinous crime committed and there is a suspect who is caught, it's a good thing. We want people who are criminals caught if they're hurting the public.
However, you got to draw the line somewhere. You can't just say we're going to take every suspect now and we're going to DNA print them. It's not reviewable. They could just create a situation where persons who are charged, where there's a flimsy evidence but they're charged because they want their DNA, they're going to go scoop the DNA when in fact the charge may not be legitimate. But you keep it in place until you search the databank or search other offenses to see if they're a suspect.
DNA is not just a fingerprint; it's just not nine or ten points of comparison. It is your genetic makeup. As science progresses it will tell much more about who we are. And having all of that powerful information in the hands of the police at the point of just arrest of a suspect I think is far too invasive of, of our rights of privacy.
ANCHOR: All right.