Criminal Justice- Short Writting

In the mid-1990s, the use of DNA fingerprinting emerged and
replaced standard fingerprinting evidence in most criminal
investigations. DNA fingerprinting is helpful with identification
because like fingerprints, no two people (except for identical
twins) have the same DNA. DNA evidence has exonerated innocent
people who have served many years in jail. It is also, however,
seen by many as an invasion of privacy.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. King reviewed a
case where a young man, Mr. King, was arrested, and his DNA was
taken and entered into a database. King was implicated in a
six-year-old unsolved rape, and found guilty of the crime using the
DNA the police took from him when he was in custody for a
non-related event. The United States Supreme Court ruled that DNA
could be collected, although the decision drew criticism from
conservative and liberal justices alike.

Considering what you have learned about the DNA investigative
revolution in Chapter 5, please answer the following:

Is the collection of an inmate’s DNA (while he/she is
incarcerated on an unrelated crime), a violation of his/her
constitutional right to privacy? Why or why not?

(250 word minimum response required)