If he campaigned on this he might have won

There’s an op-ed in the Daily News by Richard Aborn, “Make DNA the new fingerprint: N.Y. now fails to collect it from half of all convicted criminals.”  He writes:

“… The evidence is clear that violent criminals commit both multiple crimes and nonviolent crimes. It follows then that the more offenders that are required to give DNA samples, the more crimes we can prevent. In the 21st century, DNA should be treated in the same way that fingerprints were treated in the 20th century. That is, a DNA sample should be taken for all offenses and kept in a database in cases once a person is convicted. There’s no excuse. Not only is it now less expensive and faster to test DNA, but there are an ever-increasing number of surfaces from which DNA can be lifted, including guns and bullets. Almost anything a criminal touches has some chance of yielding a DNA sample …”

This is a 180-degree turnaround from what he campaigned on.  He’s now actually talking about something that involves finding and prosecuting violent thugs.  Perhaps had he made this a central issue of his campaign, as opposed to screwing gun owners, he might have gotten more than 26% of the vote.

One thought on “If he campaigned on this he might have won

  1. Don’t know this man but do know his type. Guarantee that if and when he’s ever elected to anything, regardless how he campaigned he will run roughshod over the Second Amendment.

    And I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Any takers?

Comments are closed.