Better, But Not Good

Legislative leaders yesterday reached a deal to dramatically expand the state's DNA database - but not nearly to the extent Gov. Pataki had sought.
The leaders also agreed to do away with the statute of limitations for the criminal prosecution of rape and three other serious sex crimes. They extended from one year to five the statute of limitations for civil cases.

The deal was announced last night by Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-L.I.).

Under the compromise, all convicted felons will be required to give a DNA sample to the state.

It also forces anyone convicted of any of 17 specified misdemeanors, including petit larceny, to give a sample. Petit larceny is often the first offense in a long criminal career, legal experts say.

Pataki had wanted the new policy to apply to anyone convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, saying that would help prevent future crimes and solve past ones.

Aides say the governor agreed to the compromise because it included the petit-larceny provision.

Under a previous Assembly Democratic proposal that did not include petit larceny, just 34 percent of all criminals would have had to give a DNA sample.

That figure jumps to 50 percent under the agreement, Pataki aides say.

Why were Assembly Democrats (read Speaker Silver) still reluctant to require all individuals convicted of a crime - whether misdemeanor or felony - to provide DNA samples? All criminals are already required to provide fingerprint samples, and DNA is an excellent tool for law enforcement - both to exclude and exonerate individuals who have been charged (and in some cases convicted of crimes) and to prosecute and convict those who have criminal acts.

Eliminating the statute of limitations on rape cases is a big move - and should help break some older cases which can fall through the cracks because of time limitations.

Once again, we're seeing the obstructionist in Shelly Silver shine through. How many crimes could have been solved had this agreement been reached years ago? What took Silver to have a change of heart on the matter of eliminating the statute of limitations on rape? Was there ever a good reason for any of his obstructionism? I don't think so. Neither did some of the major Democrats in the state, including AG Eliot Spitzer, who's running for governor in November.

Meanwhile, the Legislature also finally got around to dealing with Medicaid fraud in the state, which costs New York taxpayers billions over the years - and $300 million annually. Nice. How about Spitzer doing his job and prosecuting those who are involved in that mess. There's plenty of money involved, but it isn't nearly as sexy as going after the NYSE or Pfizer or the investment banks.