Under their skin

Superior Court Justice Margaret Kravchuk correctly supported Wednesday a Maine law requiring state prisoners to submit blood samples as part of a DNA data bank. Though the thought of state government keeping blood records of a certain class of citizens is creepy, the restrictions on the use of the data bank narrow it to a sophisticated form of finger printing that can both identify the guilty and protect the innocent.

Richard Maloney, finishing up a three-year sentence at the Maine Correctional Institution for burglary and associated crimes, argued that the state assumed no liability if something went during the blood test and that the test violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Maloney, who represented himself in court, had earlier summed up his objection to the test, saying the law “assumes anyone who is a criminal will continue to be a criminal.”

Actually, the law assumes that anyone who is a criminal is more likely to be a criminal in the future (not a particularly far-fetched idea) and that keeping a record of him or her is in the public interest. That’s how finger printing has been used and, as a deterrent, a reason that punishments for repeat offenders escalate.

The only even temporarily successful challenge to the DNA law occurred last year in Massachusetts, when a judge agreed that it violated the Fourth Amendment protections. That ruling was overturned last spring by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, with Associate Justice John Greaney writing that, “the high government interest in a particularly reliable form of identification outweighs the minimal intrusion of a pinprick.”

But even the effectiveness of the test, which apparently is very high, would not be enough to warrant it if the creation of the data bank did not also come with strict laws governing its use and access to it. Maine requires that all DNA records be kept confidential and makes it a crime to release them beyond criminal-justice and law-enforcement officials. A person with a DNA record may see his or her own record. Only if identifying information is removed from the records may they be used for general DNA analysis.

The identifying marks on the surface of a fingertip and those just beneath the skin inspire very different reactions in the public. But properly restricted, the more advanced tests help law enforcement without unduly burdening the convicted.