There is little debate currently over the use of DNA in courts. As well as helping in the identification of the deceased (3), DNA is also changing the way crimes are being solved (6). In fact, all fifty states in the US has established a DNA bank for certain criminals, mostly rape and murder cases (1). The speed and accuracy of solving cases is unquestionable, but how far will the police go in using genetic information to solving crimes? For example, should all convicted felons be required to submit DNA samples, or just those of major crimes? How will the police distinguish between major crimes and misdemeanors? And most importantly: will the general public be forced to present their private genetic information? (2) As more criminal cases are solved by the use of DNA profiling, a topic of mandatory genetic testing arises. Currently, DNA is being collected from suspects and matched to the genetic information left at the crime scene, but only in very serious crimes. This method is extremely reliable, as well as relatively simple to conduct, but could easily be improved on. By collecting DNA samples from proven criminals, the police would also have information to possibly solve past crimes. In addition, a bank of genetic information of criminals could solve new crimes with incredible speed and accuracy if the DNA sample matched that of the criminal’s. However, this process would only be accurate if the offender was already a known criminal. This is where the idea for mandatory genetic testing for a national bank of DNA is brought up. As the criminal leaves the scene of the felony, he would most likely leave a small piece of his DNA behind. From a drop of spit to an eyelash, the genetic information necessary to solve the crime would be everywhere. If enough genetic information was already on hand, the police would simply have to match the offender’s DNA to the bank of DNA. The speed and accuracy of this system could save years of court trials, not to mention money. In addition to improving the speed of catching criminals, this system of profiling would surely exonerate the innocent suspects much quicker, narrowing the search for the criminal (6). Consider the success of the national fingerprinting system. By owning an enormous bank of fingerprint samples from every citizen, security organizations are able to instantly solve crimes as a felon leaves a fingerprint (1). Not only is DNA even more simple than collecting fingerprints, genetic information is also more precise than fingerprinting (5). One of the advantages to using genetic testing, or “DNA fingerprinting”, is that it is much more efficient than original fingerprint techniques. Successful identification by fingerprinting unfortunately requires an entire, undamaged fingerprint, whereas genetic information could be drawn from as little as an eyelash. Fingerprints have been successfully solving crimes for almost one hundred years, but DNA identification would be undoubtedly more reliable, as well as faster. (2) In order for this to work, a national bank of DNA would have to exist, meaning genetic testing would have to be mandatory. There are many dangers to a national bank of genetic information including, but not limited to, misuse by the police or other security organizations. With scientists and geneticists claiming to have found a gene of aggression, which could predetermine a person to violence and criminal behavior, it is possible for the police to discriminate against these people. There are several more disadvantages to mandatory genetic testing. Although genetic profiling is almost flawless, the implications of any error, including simple human error, would be devastating. Such an error could mean the random selection of an innocent man to be linked to a crime. This further question of whether all innocent citizens should be required to donate their genetic information to the police, brings up one very important concern: What happens to the DNA after the police have used it? (2) If this information is made public, one could only imagine the possibilities for disaster. Misuse of one’s DNA could go much further than discrimination by employers, insurance companies, and military recruiters. Many ethical questions arise including the privacy of the information. Although all fifty states have begun using DNA in solving crimes, Virginia has set up the largest bank of DNA samples of any one state, and in fact, the second largest in the world, to England’s (1). Currently, many citizens feel collecting genetic information of criminals would enhance safety. Virginia’s DNA bank has accumulated 170,000 samples since it’s start in 1989 (1). Jerry Kilgore, Virginia’s Attorney General, likes the idea of mandatory genetic testing arguing and assured the security of genetic information would be a top priority (1). Virginia is trying to pass several laws forcing every criminal to submit genetic information. However, many are still unsure about the effects of passing a law such as this. The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Virginia, Kent Willis, said the plan was a “dangerous step in the wrong direction.” (1) Originally, the police could only take DNA samples at specific circumstances, but restrictions are beginning to loosen up (5) . If restrictions continue to relax, mandatory genetic testing may indeed follow down a similar path of fingerprinting. As well as accomplishing the previously mentioned tasks of solving crime, DNA profiling may resemble fingerprinting in its progress towards being made public. Though fingerprinting was intended for use by the police only, it was soon being used by many other organizations. Currently, fingerprinting is used from everything from renting a car to even paying for lunches in some schools (5). If private genetic information were to get out as far as fingerprint samples, genetic discrimination could almost be certain.