BI"Richard worked for a computer company in California where he was suspected of embezzlement. Unfortunately, after his arrest, he was informed that embezzlement was a felony. In several states, including California, require that anyone charged with a felony to submit their DNA to the state's DNA database to be compared to DNA samples from other cases. Richard was outraged that he would have to submit a sample of his DNA, when he had not been convicted of a crime." Should Richard have to submit a sample of his DNA even though he had not been convicted of a crime? What about "innocent until proven guilty? Is it fair for a judge or lawyer or a jury of Richard's peers to decide if he is' guilty or not guilty' given their lack of knowledge of DNA and genetics?