The debate on if DNA should be taken upon arrest is a difficult subject to battle over. I would be in favor of it staying in the law. If fingerprints are already taken then can we question a huge difference in DNA also being swabbed. Criminal activity should literally mean you are punished for your crime. If this means that to be identified by your DNA then it should be accessible. There are too many cases of identity fraud and people lying about every last detail, you CANNOT lie about your DNA, that IS a static identity.
On the media talked about the ethical debate that you could give the criminal a root beer and then use the DNA from the can. I see the point they are making. No this is not ethical, but what is the difference? We leave our DNA in various, places, but we do not often think about that.
So, DNA or no DNA?