Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
REMARKS
Council Member Ariola's opening statement on public safety and DNA evidence collection
1:45:07
ยท
80 sec
Council Member Ariola expresses concern about the direction of public safety in the city and defends the use of DNA evidence in investigations. She argues that DNA evidence is subject to court admission and does not automatically convict anyone.
- Ariola questions the wisdom of impeding police ability to collect information on criminal activity
- She acknowledges partial support for Intro 125 with the carve-out requested by the NYPD
- Ariola raises the question of how to identify at-risk youth without collecting information about them
Joann Ariola
1:45:07
Thank you, chair.
1:45:13
I wanna start with with a statement.
1:45:15
I just wanna say that the fact that we're having a hearing on these bills proves how far off the rails we've gone in public safety in this city.
1:45:27
Any DNA evidence that is collected is subject to admission in court.
1:45:31
Correct?
1:45:32
Correct.
1:45:33
So it cannot it does not in and of itself convict anyone.
1:45:38
And if the police cannot con collect info on criminal activity and serious that would seriously impede your investigation, a prosecution, a conviction in getting a violent criminal off the street.
1:45:51
So I understand why you would be in partial support of Intro one twenty five.
1:45:57
I get that completely, but with the carve out that you've asked for.
1:46:00
So you're not being you're not being an impediment to improvement.
1:46:04
You want to improve.
1:46:06
On the gang database, or as our public advocate said, we should be focusing on preventing violence and target at risk youth with programs, etcetera.
1:46:18
How would we know who these at risk youth are if we could not identify them and collect information about them?
1:46:26
And what should the list be called?