Continuing the pretty consistent peppering of flyers (and, apparently, broadcast ads, though I don’t listen/watch those) from a worried Mike Coffman against his Democratic challenger Joe Miklosi, we get a doozy here, as a follow-up to previous ad campaigns:
JOE MIKLOSI
VOTED AGAINST KATIE’S LAW.Sometimes, a single strand of evidence stands between justice serviced and a criminal set free.
[…] Miklosi voted against Katie’s Law, which expands the use of DNA to arrest and convict criminals, including rapists, murderers, and child predators.
Victims deserve justice — these violent criminals deserve punishment.
Miklosi voted against helping law enforcement solve violent and sexual assault crimes in Colorado.
JOE MIKLOSI.
Leaving dangerous criminals on our streets.
Denying justice to victims of violent crimes.
Why, Joe?! WHYYYYY???!!!
There’s also a Mike Coffman TV ad on the theme.
Why, Joe?! WHY DID YOU SIDE WITH THE PREDATORS? AND (just as bad, apparently) THEIR LAWYERS?
Or, more importantly, what’s this really all about?
Katie’s Law style bills (no, it’s not original to Colorado — it’s named after Katie Sepich) encourage building up DNA sample libraries, to be used to catch criminals when they later commit a crime. Not a bad idea, on the face of it. Laws like this do have some use. They have been used to find guilty parties of later crimes who may not have been found.
The particular version of Katie’s Law that came up for a vote, Senate Bill 09-241, and which Miklosi voted against in 2009 would have called for anyone arrested for, or arrested in investigation for, a felony in Colorado to submit a DNA sample, to be used in later crime enforcement.
Not anyone convicted of a felony, mind you. Not anyone apprehended by the police, tried, and found to be a felon.
Just anyone picked up and arrested on a felony charge, or in investigation of a felony charge.
People not convicted of any crime.
So, is that a good idea? If so, then why not have every Colorado citizen be required to submit a DNA sample. After all, that would provide the maximum protection for people in case of even first-time crimes. And since we’re already talking about requiring samples from folks not yet convicted of a crime, let’s just make it everyone?
I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad idea, though I suspect net-net it probably is. It’s just that there’s very little ethical difference in doing it, and all the outraged huffing and puffing that some would do over the proposal, while not seeing that anyone, innocent or guilty, can be arrested, strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.
Note that the proposal did provide for DNA records to be expunged if all the felony charges were dropped or the presumed-innocent accused was acquitted. Of course, they would have to actually apply to have the records expunged. I feel, myself, uncomfortable with collecting such samples upon arrest (when a person is still presumed innocent) than after conviction (when he or she is not).
Miklosi doesn’t directly address that in explaining his vote against the final version of the bill (which eventually passed). He says he felt the law couldn’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny. While normally one might argue that it’s up to the courts to decide that (and it is), that could mean that someone arrested and convicted based on Katie’s Law evidence could have their conviction overturned and be set free on the “technicality.” Y’know, the way the “predators and their lawyers” prefer.
He did vote in favor of a different form of the SB 09-241 the day before (he was one of four legislators to change their vote between the two).
(A federal appeals court, two weeks later, did uphold the constitutionality of such laws, but that sort of precedent had not yet been set.)
Miklosi also points out that Coffman himself voted against a federal Katie’s Law bill, which would have provided federal assistance to states to help them set up a DNA registry. He was one of 32 Republicans to vote Nay; the bill ended up passing on a large bipartisan vote. Apparently, to use the same argument as the ad, Coffman would rather “leave dangerous criminals on our streets” if the alternatives will cost federal taxpayer money.
My bottom line: I understand Miklosi’s concerns over this particular law, esp. since it hadn’t been tested in a federal court yet. One might criticize that judgment call, but to paint it all in these sorts of apocalyptic “MIKLOSI WANTS YOUR LOVED ONES DEAD AND THEIR KILLER TO GO FREE AND DANCE ON THEIR GRAVES!” tones is utterly ludicrous, and reflects more on Coffman than on Miklosi.