Patterico's Pontifications

9/15/2006

L.A. Times Editors: That Terrible Program We Opposed Before Is Underfunded!

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:59 pm



California’s DNA database is both too small and too large for the editors of the LA. Times.

The Times ran an editorial today, September 15, 2006, titled Underfunded DNA Mandate, complaining that the database is too small. The editorial opens with acclaim for Proposition 69:

TWO YEARS AGO, CALIFORNIA voters made the state a pioneer in DNA crime-busting by passing Proposition 69. The measure has already proved a godsend for crime victims and cops, producing quick arrests and reviving cold cases.

After this effusive praise for Proposition 69, the editorial goes on to complain that there’s not enough funding to enter all the samples that have been collected into the database — meaning it’s too small:

The problem, as Times staff writer Henry Weinstein revealed Thursday, is that the massive increase in DNA samples has overwhelmed the crime lab. Though more than 285,000 samples have been added to the database, there are more than 287,000 yet to be processed, grinding justice to a crawl.

Message: we want a complete DNA database and we want it now! Nothing less will do!

Interesting . . . because the L.A. Times ran an editorial on October 11, 2004, opposing Proposition 69. The editorial was titled A Risk-Filled Use of DNA. I discussed it and excerpted it in this post.

In 2004, the editors didn’t fault Proposition 69 because they believed the database would be underfunded and too small. Instead, they were concerned about privacy and overreaching — in other words, they worried it would be too large! (If you’re interested, I conclusively refuted their hand-wringing, limousine liberal arguments in my previous post.)

Today’s editorial tries to paper over the hypocrisy with only the briefest nod to the paper’s 2004 arguments. That brief acknowledgement is jarring in its internal inconsistency:

Whatever the cause, the problem stands to get a lot worse soon. Starting in 2009, everyone arrested for a felony — not just those convicted — must give a DNA sample. Not only is this an invasion of privacy that could lead to abuses such as police arresting innocent people to get a sample, it is also a logistical time bomb.

Translation: it’s terrible that we’re going to start collecting DNA from such a broad range of people — and even worse, we can’t get that DNA into the system immediately!!!

The database is too small! And the database is too big!

I guess this is what we should expect from a paper that complains we imprison too many first-time drug offenders — and also that we don’t imprison enough of them.

Face it, editors. The law works, and you should not have opposed it.

Three simple words, editors: “We were wrong.” It’s not so hard to say. Give it a try!

P.S. I suppose one could argue that the editors are consistent: they think fewer samples should be taken, so that they can all be entered immediately. But that argument makes sense only if you think it’s important that every sample taken be entered immediately — a proposition which is inconsistent with the position that certain samples (all of which will be taken at a later point in time) shouldn’t be entered at all.

19 Responses to “L.A. Times Editors: That Terrible Program We Opposed Before Is Underfunded!”

  1. In less than two years you all have had 572,000 DNA samples taken from, according to the article, “convicted felons, some misdemeanor offenders and those arrested on rape or murder charges”? I guess crime in california is worse than I thought.

    And no wonder there’s a backup… at that rate, your crime lab has had to to process, by my math, over 6,000 samples a week. I don’t know how long it takes to process each sample, but 1,200 a day (giving them the weekends off) ain’t chickenfeed.

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  2. That is pitiful hypocrisy. They act like no one has a memory.

    Tom Blumer (ac1462)

  3. I think that the 572,000 is not just NEW felons; it also includes all of the ones already in prison at the time the law was passed. Out of about 36 million that is less than 2%.

    kaf (f47f78)

  4. So by this logic, someone who opposes the invasion of Iraq but, once we are there, celebrates the deposition of Saddam and wants to properly fund our troops, yet continues to believe that the war will have long-term negative consequences, is a hypocrite?

    Nels Nelson (7a2ebc)

  5. The database is too small! And the database is too big!

    A database could be designed to be overbroad. And then it could also have poor data entry practices that are across the board. Across the overbroad and the not-overbroad categories of entries. Possible, but may not be the problem here.

    Should everyone be in a DNA database?

    actus (10527e)

  6. Just typical of the crinimal ;oving bleediaghearts at the Smell A Times

    krazy kagu (fb44c4)

  7. I think the real solution is to have more processing labs; but I seem to recall a ballot measure to borrow money to pay for that going down in flames.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  8. Of course the LA Times is consistent: consistently opposed to any measure advanced by the GOP; or any initiative approved by the majority of California’s voters; or virtually any proposition supported by logic and reason. Which, in general, puts the paper at odds with any chance to serve the public interest or to turn a profit. Hence the LAT’s precipitous decline in subscriptions, sales, and ad revenues.

    The LAT has a monopoly position in one of the biggest markets in the nation, yet they’re going belly up in spectacular fashion. Apparently the paper is using the same business model as Air America, with exactly the same dismal results, public indifference, and business failure.

    Refusing to even consider how their policies and practices have contributed to the paper’s abject failures, the local editors have grown so smug and haughty they’re now refusing instructions from LAT’s out-of-town owners, the Tribune Company.

    Now, that’s pretty arrogant, even for members of the 4th Estate. NY Times has the story, linked at Drudge.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  9. the los angeles times positions are not necessarily inconsistent.
    the original proposition was opposed because it was overbroad, taking dna from people who had not yet been convicted of crimes, who still enjoyed the presumption of innocence.
    now that the proposition is law, there is a triage issue involving which records are entered into the database first. do rapists go to the head of the line as they should, or are people accused of fighting in bars getting in their way? it is no inconsistency to recognize when the people have changed the law and to address the situation as it is now, rather than rehashing the election, and to call for sufficient funding to fulfill the people’s purpose in changing the law.

    assistant devil's advocate (667419)

  10. Of course the LA Times is consistent: consistently opposed to any measure advanced by the GOP;

    I thought they were in favor of schwarzeneggers attempt to destroy the public employee unions.

    actus (10527e)

  11. Black Jack: I believe the LA Tiemes endorsed Proposition 215 (medical marijuana), which was approved by a majority of California voters.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  12. Assistant Devil’s Advocate: I believe that the fact that DNA was to be taken on arrest, not on conviction, is the reason I voted against that measure.

    But, in retrospect, I may have been wrong. Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any great societal harm from the gathering of DNA in that fashion; and as long as safeguards are in place to prevent it being used as a tracking mechanism for people who are entitled to a presumption of innocence, I don’t see any such harm developing.

    Certainly triage is a legitimate concern, and I’d be interested to see if anyone has conducted a study to see how triage operates on a consistent basis — or if it even does operate on a consistent basis.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  13. a proposition which is inconsistent with the position that certain samples (all of which will be taken at a later point in time) shouldn’t be entered at all.

    Given the information available to me without either paying for a copy of the editorial or going to a library to look up the microfilm, I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. Your linked post includes a quote from the editorial: the measure is so broadly written that each year it would turn thousands of people not found guilty of a crime into perpetual suspects. Clearly that quote encompasses the proposition that certain samples which will not be taken at a later point in time shouldn’t be entered at all.

    That is to say: the original objection doesn’t appear to have been to taking samples which would inevitably be taken at a later point in time; it appears to have been an objection to taking samples which wouldn’t necessarily be taken later.

    “certain samples (many of which will be taken at a later point in time)” would be a fair characterization; but the word “all” doesn’t seem to be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  14. aphrael,

    I don’t really understand what you’re saying here, but the editors were objecting to taking samples from people who were merely arrested for a crime, as opposed to those convicted. That provision has not yet kicked in.

    Hope that clarifies matters.

    Patterico (de0616)

  15. The article was poorly researched and frustrating. I wanted to know:

    How much does it cost for the state to do the DNA analysis?

    How much for a private subcontractor?

    Do they triage – run the tests first for those most likely to have hits?

    Some counties aren’t paying their legally required share, but they didn’t say which ones or why. Because the shortfall is so large, I bet L.A. county doesn’t pay. Did they ask L.A. why they didn’t pay?

    TomHynes (c41bdd)

  16. Patterico — i did a really incredibly terrible job writing that comment, so it’s not surprising that you didn’t understand it.

    You characterized the LAT position as objecting to the processing of information from people [x], “all of which will be taken at a later time.”

    I’m arguing that there is some subset of that information which would never be taken, because the people would be acquitted. Therefore, it seemed to me, the use of the word ‘all’ was overbroad. 🙂

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  17. I’m still confused. At some point in the future, all felony arrestees will give DNA samples whether they are filed on or not, and whether they are acquitted or not. This is what the LAT objects to — but it will all happen in the future.

    Does that make sense? If not, then we just aren’t communicating.

    Patterico (de0616)

  18. Aha! OK, yes, that makes sense.people

    And, yes, we weren’t communicating until that comment; I had understood you to be saying something quite different: that all of the specific samples which are not taken now would be taken later, because the individuals would either be convicted or would be arrested on some other charge and convicted.

    In retrospect, it makes absolutely no sense for me to have thought that you were saying that. It’s impressive how my (wrong) preconceived notions about conservatives pop up at the strangest times.

    My apologies for confusing the issue (and for the implied aspersion in the way I was confusing the issue).

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  19. […] “That Terrible Program We Opposed Before Is Underfunded!“ […]

    Gotta love this title! « Something should go here, maybe later. (ca9c00)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0803 secs.