2008 Woodie Awards
DNA Testing, Guilt in Innocence
DNA testing and its necessary use as a means of rebalancing the judicial system.
Brett Heiney
Issue date: 10/7/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Since about 1996 when DNA testing became widely used, it has resulted in a sharp increase in accuracy for punishing those who commit crimes. DNA testing is of serious concern for those serving life sentences, or waiting on death row. By utilizing such testing, it has come to light that many convicts executed in the past have actually been innocent, and still others are using DNA testing to free themselves from punishments for crimes they indeed did not commit.
Why then are states beginning to limit the ability of convicts to have DNA testing that could save their, possibly innocent, lives? We as Americans promote the motto "innocent until proven guilty," but what about innocent after having been mistakenly proven guilty? To be convicted, a prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime of which they are being accused. It is indeed possible for innocent people to be found guilty of a crime they did not commit when DNA evidence is not available or wrong.
If a truly innocent man is convicted of a crime he did not carry out, then should we not give him every possibility to prove his supposed innocence? It only seems fair that if we may use DNA evidence to put people behind bars we should use DNA testing to let people go. Most convictions that have been overturned through DNA testing are those that occurred prior to 1996 when DNA testing became so widespread. As DNA testing procedures improve and become in themselves more accurate, a need for testing inmates may become rarer.
Only a small amount of those convicted since DNA testing became available have received their freedom, but if one truly innocent life is saved by having post-conviction DNA tests, then it is a necessity. We are only human, not perfect, and therefore we make mistakes. Mistakes in our legal system should not cost guiltless people their lives. There is no going back when an inmate is executed, and if it is shown later that that inmate actually did not commit the crime for which he or she was convicted they cannot be freed. Who tells the executed person's family that their brother, son, sister, cousin was actually innocent? And for that matter, who tells the victim's family that the perpetrator of the crime is still loose in society able to harm more people.
It is just plain ludicrous to disallow people to have adequate capabilities to prove their possible innocence. We are supposed to punish those who commit crimes, not those who are in a situation so similar that they are mistaken for the criminal. Our legal system is also supposed to protect the innocent, and if a convicted felon can be shown to be innocent through DNA testing then it is our responsibility as a nation living under rule of law to free them. To deny a possibly innocent person the means to prove their innocence is denying them basic human rights. I refuse to accept a legal system in which one would be considered unlucky if falsely convicted and executed. Post-conviction DNA testing should thrive in our nation even if only to save one innocent life for the rest of time.
Why then are states beginning to limit the ability of convicts to have DNA testing that could save their, possibly innocent, lives? We as Americans promote the motto "innocent until proven guilty," but what about innocent after having been mistakenly proven guilty? To be convicted, a prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime of which they are being accused. It is indeed possible for innocent people to be found guilty of a crime they did not commit when DNA evidence is not available or wrong.
If a truly innocent man is convicted of a crime he did not carry out, then should we not give him every possibility to prove his supposed innocence? It only seems fair that if we may use DNA evidence to put people behind bars we should use DNA testing to let people go. Most convictions that have been overturned through DNA testing are those that occurred prior to 1996 when DNA testing became so widespread. As DNA testing procedures improve and become in themselves more accurate, a need for testing inmates may become rarer.
Only a small amount of those convicted since DNA testing became available have received their freedom, but if one truly innocent life is saved by having post-conviction DNA tests, then it is a necessity. We are only human, not perfect, and therefore we make mistakes. Mistakes in our legal system should not cost guiltless people their lives. There is no going back when an inmate is executed, and if it is shown later that that inmate actually did not commit the crime for which he or she was convicted they cannot be freed. Who tells the executed person's family that their brother, son, sister, cousin was actually innocent? And for that matter, who tells the victim's family that the perpetrator of the crime is still loose in society able to harm more people.
It is just plain ludicrous to disallow people to have adequate capabilities to prove their possible innocence. We are supposed to punish those who commit crimes, not those who are in a situation so similar that they are mistaken for the criminal. Our legal system is also supposed to protect the innocent, and if a convicted felon can be shown to be innocent through DNA testing then it is our responsibility as a nation living under rule of law to free them. To deny a possibly innocent person the means to prove their innocence is denying them basic human rights. I refuse to accept a legal system in which one would be considered unlucky if falsely convicted and executed. Post-conviction DNA testing should thrive in our nation even if only to save one innocent life for the rest of time.