Dear Editor,
The passing of DNA evidence legislation in parliament recently is not only timely and relevant, but fulfils the criteria of high quality public policy based on relevance, reliability and focus, directed at specific target(s) with measurable results.
However, the rules governing the collection and storage of samples as well as access to and maintenance of the database must be clear, non-discriminatory, and public if the potential benefits are to be truly realised.
Questions concerning at what point, if any at all, is the State authorised to extract a sample from a citizen or suspect; for how long will the sample be stored; and in the event a suspect is absolved should the sample be removed; and at what point should we take samples of persons charged or of persons convicted must be answered at this juncture. The answers must be clear, fair and public if the policy is to have its desired effect at implementation.
This is not only critical in preventing corruption of the database, but also critical in gaining public trust and buy-in, which are the hallmarks of highly effective public policy. Public trust and consent is the bridge between high quality public policy and highly effective public policy. The strength of that bridge is determined by the quality of the implementation phase; since the best laid plan may come to naught if not effectively implemented.
Phillip Chambers
phillipdcchambers@gmail.com
Regulations for DNA laws must be set now
-->
The passing of DNA evidence legislation in parliament recently is not only timely and relevant, but fulfils the criteria of high quality public policy based on relevance, reliability and focus, directed at specific target(s) with measurable results.
However, the rules governing the collection and storage of samples as well as access to and maintenance of the database must be clear, non-discriminatory, and public if the potential benefits are to be truly realised.
Questions concerning at what point, if any at all, is the State authorised to extract a sample from a citizen or suspect; for how long will the sample be stored; and in the event a suspect is absolved should the sample be removed; and at what point should we take samples of persons charged or of persons convicted must be answered at this juncture. The answers must be clear, fair and public if the policy is to have its desired effect at implementation.
This is not only critical in preventing corruption of the database, but also critical in gaining public trust and buy-in, which are the hallmarks of highly effective public policy. Public trust and consent is the bridge between high quality public policy and highly effective public policy. The strength of that bridge is determined by the quality of the implementation phase; since the best laid plan may come to naught if not effectively implemented.
Phillip Chambers
phillipdcchambers@gmail.com
Regulations for DNA laws must be set now
-->