The issue is destined to remain controversial, but Pennsylvania lawmakers are right in joining about 20 other states that are considering expanding the DNA database to include any person arrested for a felony crime.

In most states, collection of DNA samples is limited to people who have been convicted of a felony.

According to an April 14 article in USA Today, 12 states have laws that permit sampling for some or all felony arrests, up from five in 2006. The newspaper obtained the data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Web site DNAResource.com says, in Pennsylvania, House Bill 8 and Senate Bill 1265 would mandate that any person arrested for a felony crime would be required to provide a DNA sample. The Web site lists the status of both the House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation as in committee.

It is anyone's guess if and when the proposed laws will get to the Senate and House floors for a vote by the full membership. However, it is in the best interests of all law-abiding state residents that the legislation not die in committee.

But the arguments of opponents should not be ignored.

Civil liberties advocates believe the testing, once applied narrowly to sex offenders and convicted felons, amounts to a clumsy forensic dragnet.

But that need not be the case. Provisions in most of the new laws call for destruction of DNA samples if suspects are acquitted, or if charges against them are dropped.

After a sample is destroyed, information from that sample cannot be matched to other crimes in the database.

DNA samples, which contain an individual's unique genetic code, are compared against nearly 4 million genetic profiles collected from crime scenes and other sources as part of a data bank operated by the FBI to help investigate crimes.

According to the FBI, that data bank has helped more than 40,000 investigations over the past 18 years.

Not only has it helped solve crimes, it also has helped prove people innocent of crimes with which they were accused.

The thinking of those reflecting on the issue — including the Pennsylvania lawmakers who might eventually vote on it — should be that if this scientific capability exists, that resource should be a part of the process of bringing criminals to justice.

Beginning in July, South Dakota and Kansas will require all felony suspects to provide DNA samples. In January, North Dakota and California will do so.

Meanwhile, the federal government is preparing to issue similar rules for taking samples from thousands of detainees in its custody, including suspected immigration violators.

Regarding the felony suspects in his state, North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin said the expanded sampling program is "a matter of public safety. . . . If we have a murderer or rapist out there, do we really have to go overboard in trying not to violate that person's privacy?"

That's a good point that should help guide the Pennsylvania General Assembly's consideration of this important issue.

Pennsylvania lawmakers should follow the lead of the dozen states that already have expanded DNA sample collection.