If mug shots and fingerprints are methods of identification, as Eugene Robinson writes [“The injustice of being forced to say ‘aah,’ ” op-ed, June 14], what is so different about DNA cheek swabs? Fingerprints left at the scene of a crime are checked against databases in an effort to identify the perpetrator. Mug shots are passed around for the same purpose. Why should a rapist expect that his identity would be safe from similar efforts to identify him? After all, rape is a brutal crime, and effective methods to identify their perpetrators should be applauded, not denigrated.
The Fourth Amendment is not absolute but is subject to the same “balancing” test as other amendments. And although Justice Antonin Scalia makes the tired old Chicken Little argument (The sky will fall, the sky will fall!), we are entitled to give his argument the same weight as we do other nursery stories.
Max Pieper, Burke