Obama takes tough DNA evidence stance : The Swamp
It blows my mind that this country sends men and women overseas to die in the name of freedom, but they won't test DNA for fear of time and monetary costs, in the name of that same freedom. Does that not seem entirely hypocritical to anyone else?
Technorati Tags: dna, dna test, innocent, wrongful conviction, wrongfully convicted, freedom, prison
The new deputy Solicitor General for the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court today to go slow in giving prisoners a right to seek DNA testing that could free them.I don't understand! Again, I pose the questions, what is there to lose? Time? Money? Is that more valuable than the freedom and life of a law-abiding, innocent citizen of the USA?
"Our position is there is no constitutional right to DNA," Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor, told the justices.
It blows my mind that this country sends men and women overseas to die in the name of freedom, but they won't test DNA for fear of time and monetary costs, in the name of that same freedom. Does that not seem entirely hypocritical to anyone else?
Technorati Tags: dna, dna test, innocent, wrongful conviction, wrongfully convicted, freedom, prison
I can't believe the Obama Administration is siding up with Alaskan prosecutors in this case. I certainly don't see any possible advantage to preventing an inmate from undergoing a test that might prove his innocence.
ReplyDeletethe only thing i can think of is that it will reveal how many people in prison are innocent, thus thrusting the systems flaws into the spotlight and making them all look like a bunch of assholes.
ReplyDeleteGetting good data regarding the number of wrongly convicted has always been difficult, but the advent of DNA testing has provided a powerful tool that has the potential to shatter the comfort (or is it the arrogance) of those who think that such injustice is rare. So, the authorities are fearful, I think, that their cloak of integrity may, like the emperor's new clothes, be illusory.
ReplyDeleteThe questions from Scalia and Alito were disingenuous at best. Saying that a defendant may attempt to game the system by getting a second bite at the apple by not requesting more strenuous DNA testing at trial is stretch. If there was enough material that would provide conclusive evidence, I am sure the prosecutor would want it tested. If he didn't want it tested and knew there was a test that would provide proof of guilt or innocence, he should be required to have the test done. To assume a defendant will know the ins-and-outs of DNA evidence and the various tests is dangerous. Most lawyers don't fully understand it, and they are in charge of trying to explain it to juries.
ReplyDeleteIf a witness gave testimony in a foreign language and it was interpreted for the court, and later a more accurate interpretation showed the witness actually testified to something more that the original translation...would it matter. All the states do is hide behind procedure. Alaska even said in the case if Osborne did properly request additional DNA testing according to the rules of procedure in Alaska, they would still most likely oppose on procedural basis.
Sticking to a rule for no other reason other than the fact that it's a rule. There is no humanity in that.
ReplyDeleteProcedure is always the state's first, second, and third arguments in most appeals. It is sad. It becomes a matter of pride and politics, and the pathology of power. They can't let themselves be wrong, and they always pretend that any adverse decision is going to open the "floodgates"for appeals. In Alaska I think there were 7 other potential cases. 7 is not a floodgate.
ReplyDeleteTake away prosecutor immunity in wrongful convictions, and it will level the playing field a little...just a little.
Even if there were hundreds of potential appeals, if it freed one innocent man, would it not be worth it?
ReplyDeleteIf there were 3,000,000 appeals and it freed one innocent person it would be worth it. And probably a lot cheaper and faster that all the post-conviction antics that currently go on.
ReplyDelete