Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Steven Benjamin, Harvey Bryant
Aired January 02, 2003 - 08:16 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: A with new year come new laws. In Virginia, there is one such statute and some say it lets police there go too far in collecting DNA evidence. Anyone charged with a violent felony, not convicted, anyone just charged must now submit a DNA sample. Now, is this a violation of civil rights or is it a necessary crime fighting measure?
Joining us now to talk about that in New York, Steven Benjamin. He is a criminal defense attorney who practices in Richmond, Virginia. And in Virginia Beach, city prosecutor Harvey Bryant.
Thank you very much for your time this morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Benjamin, what do you have to say about this law?
STEVEN BENJAMIN, VIRGINIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's not necessary. In Virginia, all felons, all felons who are convicted of any felony have their DNA placed into the data bank. This measure is completely unnecessary because it's going to do nothing to increase what is already one of the best databases in the country.
HARRIS: Well, doesn't it improve the best database in the country, because no one is really disputing just how accurate DNA evidence is?
BENJAMIN: It doesn't even improve it. It really is a feel good measure that not only is unnecessary, but potentially harmful, as well. It's something that is, quite frankly, too costly, has too much potential for crippling the system. It does far too much harm than good.
HARRIS: What do you have to say about that, Mr. Bryant?
HARVEY BRYANT, VIRGINIA BEACH PROSECUTOR: Well, I disagree with my good friend, Mr. Benjamin. I think it's going to definitely enhance Virginia's leadership nationally in the collection and use of DNA to bring criminals to justice. We anticipate in Virginia Beach alone that we'll add about 600, maybe 660 some samples to our nation leading DNA bank as it is now. It's already shown great success in the past and this is just another step in Virginia being the national leader in the use of DNA evidence.
HARRIS: Well, what kind of success has it shown in the past and has it been enough success to allay any fears that the public might have about the government having too much information on them?
BRYANT: Well, we've had, in Virginia, almost a thousand hits, cold hits, that is, matches of DNA in cases where we didn't know who the defendant was until we had those hits. In Virginia Beach alone just this year, we've had a defendant who had raped three women, one a teenaged girl in a school yard in 1992 and then two other rapes in 1995. As a result of DNA matches when he was in custody, we were able to solve those, all three of those crimes, and another recent case of a similar nature.
So I think that it's something that we've shown leadership in. I don't think it's anything the law abiding public certainly has anything to fear. And if you don't want your DNA sample taken, don't commit a felony in Virginia.
HARRIS: That sounds like the bottom line there to me, Mr. Benjamin.
BENJAMIN: Well, sure. But we, he still hasn't answered the question. If all felons have their DNA placed in the data bank, what really does this do other than make us feel good? Virginia's in the midst of...
BRYANT: Well...
BENJAMIN: I'm sorry? Virginia's in the midst of a tremendous budgetary crisis right now.
HARRIS: Well, he just -- I'm sorry, Mr. Benjamin, but Mr. Bryant just said that here's something it does do, it did help in at least a hundred cases here.
BENJAMIN: Sure, and that's the point. We already have this information in our data bank. Right now his own office can't afford to prosecute misdemeanors because they're having to cut prosecutors from their staff. We can't fund civil commitment of sexual predators because, quite frankly, Virginia is broke right now.
I think people would go along with or would understand giving up certain privacy rights if this really were a necessary measure and not just some empty gesture, and that's all it amounts to. Right now if the police suspect someone of doing something, it's easy to collect their DNA. The person can consent to it or the police need only seize their drinking cup, their napkin, their straw. Any surface that they've touched can be swabbed.
HARRIS: And as I understand it, since you only have to be charged, you don't have to be convicted, doesn't that seriously provide for the beginnings of a slippery slope here, Mr. Benjamin?
BENJAMIN: Oh, absolutely.
BRYANT: Well...
BENJAMIN: It calls for the potential for abuse. What about identity theft? We're all assured now that it's only a matter of time until somebody steals our identity.
HARRIS: Well, let's let... BENJAMIN: What if the serial rapist takes your identity and gives his DNA? You're going to have a surprise visit in the middle of the morning from the police one day.
HARRIS: Well, let's Mr. Bryant give his word on all this.
BRYANT: Those are red herrings in this situation. Let me say, first of all, that the reason we want to get this DNA up front when they're first arrested for violent felonies, it has to be a violent felony, is that we can then make matches while the cases are pending during the months and sometimes a year or more that it takes to get a conviction. And so there's no reason to delay justice in that sense. We have to remember that everyone arrested so far as I know in the United States for a felony has their fingerprints taken and then their fingerprints are compared. So this is just another progression in that area.
So far as using these samples to place evidence against someone who didn't commit a crime, we're talking about swabs from inside of the cheeks. We're not talking about liquids or vials or things that can be spread around some crime scene. So it's very interesting to me how defendants get so concerned about civil liberties after they've violated somebody else's.
HARRIS: Well, and we're going to have to leave it there, gentlemen.
Thank you very much for sharing the discussion on both sides this morning.
Steven Benjamin and Harvey Bryant.
BENJAMIN: Thank you.
HARRIS: Thank you very much and happy new year to both of you.
BRYANT: Thank you.
BENJAMIN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired January 2, 2003 - 08:16 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: A with new year come new laws. In Virginia, there is one such statute and some say it lets police there go too far in collecting DNA evidence. Anyone charged with a violent felony, not convicted, anyone just charged must now submit a DNA sample. Now, is this a violation of civil rights or is it a necessary crime fighting measure?
Joining us now to talk about that in New York, Steven Benjamin. He is a criminal defense attorney who practices in Richmond, Virginia. And in Virginia Beach, city prosecutor Harvey Bryant.
Thank you very much for your time this morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Benjamin, what do you have to say about this law?
STEVEN BENJAMIN, VIRGINIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's not necessary. In Virginia, all felons, all felons who are convicted of any felony have their DNA placed into the data bank. This measure is completely unnecessary because it's going to do nothing to increase what is already one of the best databases in the country.
HARRIS: Well, doesn't it improve the best database in the country, because no one is really disputing just how accurate DNA evidence is?
BENJAMIN: It doesn't even improve it. It really is a feel good measure that not only is unnecessary, but potentially harmful, as well. It's something that is, quite frankly, too costly, has too much potential for crippling the system. It does far too much harm than good.
HARRIS: What do you have to say about that, Mr. Bryant?
HARVEY BRYANT, VIRGINIA BEACH PROSECUTOR: Well, I disagree with my good friend, Mr. Benjamin. I think it's going to definitely enhance Virginia's leadership nationally in the collection and use of DNA to bring criminals to justice. We anticipate in Virginia Beach alone that we'll add about 600, maybe 660 some samples to our nation leading DNA bank as it is now. It's already shown great success in the past and this is just another step in Virginia being the national leader in the use of DNA evidence.
HARRIS: Well, what kind of success has it shown in the past and has it been enough success to allay any fears that the public might have about the government having too much information on them?
BRYANT: Well, we've had, in Virginia, almost a thousand hits, cold hits, that is, matches of DNA in cases where we didn't know who the defendant was until we had those hits. In Virginia Beach alone just this year, we've had a defendant who had raped three women, one a teenaged girl in a school yard in 1992 and then two other rapes in 1995. As a result of DNA matches when he was in custody, we were able to solve those, all three of those crimes, and another recent case of a similar nature.
So I think that it's something that we've shown leadership in. I don't think it's anything the law abiding public certainly has anything to fear. And if you don't want your DNA sample taken, don't commit a felony in Virginia.
HARRIS: That sounds like the bottom line there to me, Mr. Benjamin.
BENJAMIN: Well, sure. But we, he still hasn't answered the question. If all felons have their DNA placed in the data bank, what really does this do other than make us feel good? Virginia's in the midst of...
BRYANT: Well...
BENJAMIN: I'm sorry? Virginia's in the midst of a tremendous budgetary crisis right now.
HARRIS: Well, he just -- I'm sorry, Mr. Benjamin, but Mr. Bryant just said that here's something it does do, it did help in at least a hundred cases here.
BENJAMIN: Sure, and that's the point. We already have this information in our data bank. Right now his own office can't afford to prosecute misdemeanors because they're having to cut prosecutors from their staff. We can't fund civil commitment of sexual predators because, quite frankly, Virginia is broke right now.
I think people would go along with or would understand giving up certain privacy rights if this really were a necessary measure and not just some empty gesture, and that's all it amounts to. Right now if the police suspect someone of doing something, it's easy to collect their DNA. The person can consent to it or the police need only seize their drinking cup, their napkin, their straw. Any surface that they've touched can be swabbed.
HARRIS: And as I understand it, since you only have to be charged, you don't have to be convicted, doesn't that seriously provide for the beginnings of a slippery slope here, Mr. Benjamin?
BENJAMIN: Oh, absolutely.
BRYANT: Well...
BENJAMIN: It calls for the potential for abuse. What about identity theft? We're all assured now that it's only a matter of time until somebody steals our identity.
HARRIS: Well, let's let... BENJAMIN: What if the serial rapist takes your identity and gives his DNA? You're going to have a surprise visit in the middle of the morning from the police one day.
HARRIS: Well, let's Mr. Bryant give his word on all this.
BRYANT: Those are red herrings in this situation. Let me say, first of all, that the reason we want to get this DNA up front when they're first arrested for violent felonies, it has to be a violent felony, is that we can then make matches while the cases are pending during the months and sometimes a year or more that it takes to get a conviction. And so there's no reason to delay justice in that sense. We have to remember that everyone arrested so far as I know in the United States for a felony has their fingerprints taken and then their fingerprints are compared. So this is just another progression in that area.
So far as using these samples to place evidence against someone who didn't commit a crime, we're talking about swabs from inside of the cheeks. We're not talking about liquids or vials or things that can be spread around some crime scene. So it's very interesting to me how defendants get so concerned about civil liberties after they've violated somebody else's.
HARRIS: Well, and we're going to have to leave it there, gentlemen.
Thank you very much for sharing the discussion on both sides this morning.
Steven Benjamin and Harvey Bryant.
BENJAMIN: Thank you.
HARRIS: Thank you very much and happy new year to both of you.
BRYANT: Thank you.
BENJAMIN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
