Justices Rule Inmates Don’t Have Right to DNA Tests

[Matt Collins]

Justices Rule Inmates Don’t Have Right to DNA Tests

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?hp


Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.


Since 1992, 238 people in the United States, some who were sitting on death row, have been exonerated of crimes through DNA testing. In many of those cases, the DNA testing used to clear them was not available at the time of the crime.

 

[ChristopherJ]

I actually think this is the correct decision. Morally you may not agree with it but this is a state's rights issue.

 

[Matt Collins]

I actually think this is the correct decision. Morally you may not agree with it but this is a state's rights issue.

Can you expound upon this? Im interested in your opinion.

 

[ChristopherJ]

Can you expound upon this? Im interested in your opinion.

IMO it's not much different than something like Roe v. Wade where the court legislates a law from the bench.

Like I said, morally it is a tough pill to swallow because you don't want to see innocent people sitting in jail but does the SC have a right to turn over state law and make states do DNA tests on every prisoner that wants one?

I don't know why some states wouldn't want to (I think most already do) but I don't think the federal gov't should come in and force it on them.

 

[ChristopherJ]

Just to expand on my previous post a little because I hadn't read the article you linked but I think this kind of sums it up better than I did...

“The availability of new DNA testing, however, cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.”

In addition, the majority reasoned, it is not so much up to the federal courts as it is to the state legislatures to establish rules “to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system.”

 

[brandon]

How much would DNA tests for every convicted felon cost the tax payers?

 

[South Park Fan]

How much would DNA tests for every convicted felon cost the tax payers?

Probably less than execution.

 

[LATruth]

Tell that to the 1 wrongfully convicted man sitting in jail for x amount of years and explain the logical reasoning in why this is "just". A man convicted of circumstantial evidence wishing dna would be made available to exonerate himself.

Bad move IMO. Should every defendant be allowed dna testing? No. Should every convict sitting in jail based on circumstantial evidence where dna could logically shed light on his case be allowed. Yes.

 

[Matt Collins]

Tell that to the 1 wrongfully convicted man sitting in jail for x amount of years and explain the logical reasoning in why this is "just". A man convicted of circumstantial evidence wishing dna would be made available to exonerate himself.

Bad move IMO. Should every defendant be allowed dna testing? No. Should every convict sitting in jail based on circumstantial evidence where dna could logically shed light on his case be allowed. Yes.

I tend to agree.

More fundamentally, is this something the federal govt can dictate to the states.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Appears to be Government Protecting FAILED government.

This is where THE JURY needs to be educated. DA's have a nationwide handbook on how to manipulate the jurors. HOW TO WIN.

The Supreme Court is just full of politicians anointed by their cronies in the legislative branch.

 

[Theocrat]

How Unfortunate

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?hp


Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.


Since 1992, 238 people in the United States, some who were sitting on death row, have been exonerated of crimes through DNA testing. In many of those cases, the DNA testing used to clear them was not available at the time of the crime.

As an advocate for the death penalty, I believe the Supreme Court's decision is unwarranted. It could save the lives of otherwise innocent people who do not need the death penalty.

I guess that's what happens when people relegate their rights as creations of the State. The State gets to tell them which rights they have and which rights they do not have.

 

[ItsTime]

Wait are they saying that even if they can afford the testing they are not allowed to?

 

[LATruth]

Wait are they saying that even if they can afford the testing they are not allowed to?

That's what I gather from the OP.

 

[ItsTime]

That's what I gather from the OP.

Then this is complete bullshit.

 

[disorderlyvision]

I can't believe some of you actually support this BS

States rights issue, wtf? No it is not. it is an individual rights issue. Aside from that the burden of proof is on the state.

 

[ChristopherJ]

Tell that to the 1 wrongfully convicted man sitting in jail for x amount of years and explain the logical reasoning in why this is "just". A man convicted of circumstantial evidence wishing dna would be made available to exonerate himself.

Bad move IMO. Should every defendant be allowed dna testing? No. Should every convict sitting in jail based on circumstantial evidence where dna could logically shed light on his case be allowed. Yes.

This is the moral issue but the crux of the matter is that there is no federal law regarding this issue. The court's job is to interpret existing law not create new law which has been a problem in this country.

I suppose one could argue they're protecting life or liberty but that should be done through the legislative branch not through the judicial branch.

 

[kathy88]

Probably less than execution.

or life in prison

 

[sparebulb]

This decision is crazy. The prosecution has and will use DNA evidence to its fullest extent to convict, yet this denies the convicted access to the only evidence that could possibly exonerate them.

As far as the cost involved, since when do we run a cost analysis for conviction? Also, I would imagine that there aren't all that many people in prison who's convictions would hinge on DNA evidence.

 

[South Park Fan]

Taken from Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124533135682627425.html)

"A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, adding that it remains an "open question"whether "proof of 'actual innocence'" is enough to overturn a conviction after a fair trial.

Is this guy fucking serious?

 

[ItsTime]

Taken from Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124533135682627425.html)



Is this guy fucking serious?

my head just exploded.