I also recognize that there are potential drawbacks to laws like this – civil liberties such as personal autonomy could potentially be infringed upon if used indiscriminately or without proper oversight/regulation; additionally stigma associated with use might lead some people away from seeking help or support out fear being subject to treatments which most consider extreme & excessive – thus causing harm by denying access necessary services individuals might otherwise benefit from receiving (eg mental health assistance). Ultimately while one may personal view this type penalty as draconian measure best suited punishing hardest cases only after all else has failed it is important recognize different perspective regarding general acceptance within society itself before deciding whether consistent implementation across various jurisdictions is feasible/acceptable course action to those who investigate crime and can also help to improve the accuracy of court proceedings.

Criminal justice practitioners are responsible for evaluating all potential benefits and risks associated with a particular technology. They must consider both the value of technological advances within criminal justice processing and whether utilization of such technologies is consistent with principles such as privacy, due process, safety, equality, fairness, and respect for individual rights. Practitioners may also be involved in exploring what ethical considerations should be taken into account when developing or implementing new technologies in the criminal justice system.

Criminal justice policymakers must assess which new technologies will bring about improved outcomes that outweigh any associated costs or limitations. This assessment includes consideration of any controversial issues related to technology use as well as gaining an understanding of how existing legal frameworks apply to proposed technology interventions. As part of this evaluation process it is important for policymakers to consult with stakeholders from across the criminal justice system including law enforcement personnel; judges; prosecutors; defense attorneys; corrections staff; policy makers; technologists/developers; government agencies/organizations; victim advocates/service providers etc., in order to understand their perspectives on these issues prior to making decisions regarding implementation or expansion of technology use within their jurisdiction(s).

One example of a controversial issue related to DNA is its expanding use in criminal investigations and trials by law enforcement investigators and forensic scientists. With advancements in DNA testing over recent decades police departments have been able expand their collection practices beyond source evidence found at crime scenes (such as blood, semen) to include other forms like hair strands, saliva etc.. In addition there has been increased demand by police forces across multiple jurisdictions for accesses databases containing DNA profiles collected from individuals who have not necessarily been convicted but are identified through surveillance activities such as stop-and-frisk measures or voluntary DNA contributions from relatives of missing persons cases etc.. Such expansionary efforts have generated debates around questions concerning Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure coupled with debates around constitutional issues surrounding expanded police powers granted through large scale biological profiling initiatives being led by state governments such as California’s ‘Rap Back’ program whereby individuals have their biometric information stored indefinitely within state databanks allowing authorities easier accesses than ever before into an individuals past history which could potentially lead to discriminatory policing practices especially towards minority groups who are disproportionately targeted under current enforcement policies . Overall arguments challenging further expansions in DNA usage center on privacy concerns raised over the implications posed by unchecked growths in data collections broadly labeled under the catchall term “Big Data” alongside practical considerations relating accesses restrictions (i.e., Who should be allowed accesses? How much control should outside organizations have?) as well as flagging broader social implications ( i.e., What would constitute proper protocol upon discovery? To whom does responsibility fall?)