Convicts' Right to DNA Tests Is Questioned - NYTimes.comFor years, a man who was convicted of that rape, William G. Osborne, has claimed that advanced DNA tests on the condom would prove his innocence, but prosecutors in Alaska say that he is not entitled to them.
This always sends me into a nauseating whirlpool of confusion. Why, if there is DNA available to test in *any* case, would they not test it just to make sure they have the right man (or woman)? It might cost more money? So money is more valuable than an innocent man's freedom?
I think it should be retroactively automatic. All DNA in all cases, ever, should be tested. I think the real reason why it's not, is because every day average people who have no interest in wrongful convictions, would be shocked at how many people would set free. I would estimate hundreds of thousands.
In any case where a wrongfully convicted man gets DNA testing to prove in innocence, there has been a catalyst to getting that DNA testing. In Timothy Cole's case, it was the confession of the real rapist. In other cases it could be recanted testimony, trial errors brought to light, similar crimes being committed, etc. To believe that these are the only cases in which an innocent man can possibly be cleared with DNA testing is naive and absurd. The fact is, there are many more innocent people in prison who have not yet had this trigger for DNA testing, and may never at all. They may die, like Timothy Cole, an innocent in prison. Unless we test them all.
Technorati Tags: DNA, timothy cole, wrongfully convicted, wrongful conviction, prison, innocent
No comments:
Post a Comment