WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal justices appeared divided Monday about giving convicts a constitutional right to test DNA evidence, which for 232 inmates has meant exoneration.
The issue arose in the case of William Osborne, who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago. He won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt, says Osborne, who has admitted his guilt in a bid for parole.
On the one hand, the court’s four liberal justices seemed to be in general agreement that prosecutors should open their evidence lockers when they contain genetic material that could reveal whether someone has been wrongly imprisoned. The numbers wouldn’t be very large, Justice John Paul Stevens said.
On the other hand, the four conservatives were wary of deciding to allow DNA testing so broadly that "it appears that the prisoner is gaming the system," as Justice Samuel Alito said. Convicts who pass up the chance to have genetic testing done at trial or who do not declare under oath that they are innocent could fall within Alito’s description.
In the middle, as he often is, was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy seemed willing to accept that any right to a DNA test would have to follow a claim of innocence, made under penalty of perjury. Yet he was frustrated by the refusal of Assistant Alaska Attorney General Kenneth Rosenstein to say that Osborne could get what he wants if he swears to his innocence.
A decision is expected in the spring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I that this man should have the chance to prove he is innocent.I am pretty sure that he would not be tryingto do this if he was innocent.I do believe that this falls under the right to a fair trial it wouldn't be fair if everyone else gets to appeal thier case to the courts and recieve the DNA test and this man does not so i should hope taht he gets the chance to be proven innocent or be preven guilty again.
I think that as citizens of United States, prisoners should have the right to prove their innocence. A prisoner should have the right to the new improvements in DNA technology because even though that prisoner probably went through a long, drawn out trial, the determining factor was DNA evidence, which was iffy at best. The concession is that victims' old wounds would be reopened, and that the victims should have more rights than the accused; however, under the law, all U.S. citizens are equal and have the right to life beyond the bars if they are truly innocent.
WOW! That's a tuff one its hard to decide, i think both parties have a good point. The court's four liberal justices are right to say that the prosecutors should have their evidence open when it contains genetic material that could prevent a lawsuit costing millions of dollars, for wrongly imprisoning someone. On the other hand though, the four conservatives were right by being wary, it does seem that he is just "gaming the system" as Justice Samuel Alito said. William Osborne shouldn't have passed up the chance to have a genetic testing done. He'll be lucky if the decision falls in his favor.
I think its a good thing and that the court should allow the right to DNA evidence or whatever. If this will help prove that someone who is being convicted of a rape is innocent, that person being tried should have that right.
I think that convicts should have a constitutional right to test DNA evidence in order to get proven facts regarding their case. The requirement of pleading innocence on trial is a good idea, but I think that criminal investigators should take care of all the technical evidence anyway, separate from the trial. Too bad money is an issue. the cost of having the test done is a bad thing, but so is making a mistake and being sued by the person who was mistakenly imprisoned. Tough decision if you ask me.
This is difficult. I believe everyone should have the right to prove they are innoccent but is it worth all the money for those who just want to find some excuse? I kind of agree that this decision should be left up to the states. I mean I know the system isnt perfect and it never will be but still i dont know if that would be the best use of all of our tax money.
This issue could go both ways in my opinion. If they do approve this, how will they draw the line as to how far back someone can DNA test? and will many convicts "game" the system? That is the down side. There are also many innocent individuals who are serving time for crimes that they did not commit. I am glad I do not have to make the decision because I am not sure I would know which way to go.
I think that any evidence related to a case that could incriminate someone or prove them not guilty should be accessed and examined to its fullest potential. Evidence that could change a prison sentence for someone should never be denied in court.
If DNA testing was going to be allowed for criminals, I 100% agree with Justice Anthony Kennedy. Criminals have to state that they are innocent and not admit to being guilty for parole or reduced sentence to prove that they are worthy of the test, which would clear their name. This should cut down on criminals gaming the system, and hopefully prevent as much as possible, guilty men and women from walking free.
I think this is a really great idea. If someone is charged for something and they have the physical proof to potentially prove thier innocence, they should of course be allowed to use it in court. This could also help keep more innocent people out of prison and put more guilty people in prison. I don't really see what Alito means about prisoners "gaming the system" because it's not like they can falsify DNA evidence. I think that if this was passed, it could prove to be very helpful.
To me, this is a very sticky issue, I understand that some convicts don't want to do DNA testing because they want to protect their private lives. But, I also know that alot of them know that a DNA test could prove them guilty of their crimes indefinitely. I think that either way, inmates should be forced to do the testing to clear up any issues in their cases, and other crimes that they might have been involved in. They're incarcerated they lost their rights when they were booked!
Yeah! they should totally let the guy get a DNA test. I mean, what if he's innocent. It would make things alot better for the guy. And think of his family! Imagine how they feel. Imagine if it was you in this situation, wouldn't you want to have this test done to prove your innosence? I know I would.
i think that DNA testing should be allowed for prisoners. 254 people exaunerated of a crime is enough to prove to me that the system is flawed. the retesting should be limited though, to the cases tht pleaded guilty. there is no point in wasting the states money.
I think that we should allow DNA testing to be an option for convicts to prove their innocence. I also think that a prosecution attourney should have the right to test a subject genetically. The point is to find out if they are guilty or not. This just seems like another way to make it much more efficient. It's very hard to fool a DNA test. Lets give it a shot.
I dont know what to think about this issue, I would hate for an innocent person to sit in prison, especially one on death row. But I also understand that it would cost a lot for the state to pay for this, not inclusing the after affects if you had an innocent person i prison, thats a lot of heartache on both sides. I believe that cases that were done back when DNA testing was not as good as it is now should be retested if there is enough DNA to sample, and if not well theres nothing you can do about that. This is going to be a big issue i am ready to see what happens.
The right to DNA evidence has already produced astonishing results. Many have been exonerated from the terrible crimes placed in their fault, and sadly they had to plead guilty because they knew they could not win. If someone pleads innocence, with today's technology, what would be the reason to deny them the right to DNA evidence? The court system in America is obviously not flawless, and never will be absolutely perfect, but can't we work toward getting it there? Those convicted of crimes have just as many rights as any other American.
wow that is real crazy. I dont think that sexually aggressive lyrics pomote teens to sex at an early age. Music is just words an people who actually take it seriously are just dumb. Theres probably lots of other things that influence teens to do things like that.I dont think music is one. Its pretty ridiculous to me that they would try to do something so that parents could control what thier kids listen to because you can listen to music every where so either way they are just going to keep listering to it. If they want their kids to stay abstinent they can jus talk to them and really tell them not to do stupid things and give in to peer presure.
If I were in Osborne's position, I would definitely want a DNA test. I think convicts should have the constitutional right to DNA testing because it has been proven how many of them were unjustly imprisoned. We will never know how many innocent people have been put to death for a heinous crime they did not commit-and that they could have been cleared by a DNA test.
Any case that has DNA evidence should use the technology we have today for testing in every way possible. If the DNA will show a positive yes or no in determining guilt it should not be kept away from the accused. It's been seen that many people have been wrongly convicted where DNA testing came back and proved their innocence. Yes, some people will be playing the game and abuse the right to DNA testing, but only so much time can be gained by asking for testing. As far as financial issues go, sure, the tests may get a little expensive for every person that needs/wants them, but how much does it cost to keep those convicted in prison when their innocence could be proven with one test; and once they are released how much will they sue the state for for wrongly imprisoning them?
If courts would require DNA testing if possible or at least allow it to anyone who requests it, a person being wrongly accused of a crime could be proven innocent and police could immediately continue looking for the correct person instead of dragging trials and appeals and jail time out for years before they realise they have the wrong person.
i think people do have a right to choosing if theyre dna tested or not, but then again they dont. im on the fence about this one, what if they committed a serious crime that involved dna testing but he chose not to get tested, they would have to develop other ways of finding out ho did the dirty deed.
Giving inmates the right to DNA testing is only common since, in my opinion. It will allow all of the inmates that were wrongly accused to finally be released. I don't understand why we are even arguing over this issue. Everyone deserves a right to a fair trial. It's the freakin 6th amendment.
The fact that there were so many people on death row who were wrongly persecuted is appalling. DNA testing could have saved so many years that those men are not going to get back. DNA testing should be a fixture in the court system, even if it is expensive.
As I said before, this is ridiculous. Why should the accused have less rights than the accuser? This country boasts of all of these "equal rights" in its Constitution, but at the same time it fails to protect its citizens. At what point does an American citizen lose his or her rights? Is there such a point, definitively outlined in our Constitution or any of its Amendments? Theoretically, a man in jail has no more and no less rights than his counterpart outside the fence.
In death row cases, what about that one innocent person who is denied DNA testing and is convicted and killed by lethal injection? What about cases like this one, where a man has been kept in prison for over a decade and wants to prove one way or the other whether or not he belongs there? And what about every other American, who, if they are wrongly or rightly accused of a crime, wouldn't have the right to prove guilt or innocence if this "right to testing" isn't allowed?
In my opinion, this "right to DNA testing" should be approved. I mean, I don't know about the rest of the world, but if it was me locking another person away, I'd at least want to know as close to 100% as possible that I'd gotten the right one.
Even though DNA testing would be very expensive, its better to allow it now, rather than getting a case wrong. You can't risk throwing a person in jail or having them executed for the sake of saving time and money. Allowing DNA testing is a lot cheaper than paying a family compensation for a family member wrongly killed.
I think that it is a brilliant idea. If you're innocent then you should be allowed to prove it. I'd vote for it.
I think that he should have a second chance to prove that he is innocent. He should be able to have a new DNA testing to prove his innocence.
Post a Comment