Post Conviction DNA Testing: A Revolution of Innocence at Work
Post-conviction DNA testing is being resisted, but has in the past as well as in modern day been proven beneficial. I strongly support that DNA testing should be put into affect for use on inmates sitting on death row, and believe that the system of capital punishment in American society should not “seal the fate” (Edwards) of an individual on death row who may hold true innocence. A case should be re-opened after conviction to use modern resources to prove innocence or guilt so that death row inmates may not be innocently executed. In simpler terms you could ask, did an innocent man die today? Although this subject drives controversy on both sides of the argument, there is a specific point in which a human life should be valued above any obstacles that may stop the proof of innocence. Post-conviction DNA testing will not only bring out true innocence where needed, but start to also build a solid foundation for the American system of capital punishment. There has been a number of cases as evidence to support, and a clear examples of how this process will revolutionize justification within our modern court system. In cases of conviction to execution, modern resources should be used such as DNA testing to shift the death penalty away from executing the innocent.
SUPPORT FROM REAL CASES AND EVENTS TO SUPPORT
As accounting for the past, there have been a number of cases in which post-conviction DNA testing would have and has proved beneficial, such as exonerating or setting free the innocent on death row. The “DPIC list includes anyone whose conviction and sentence were overturned on appeal, followed by acquittal at retrial, dismissal of the charges, or a pardon based on new evidence” (Lane). In fact there are a number of people on this list who have participated in fulfilling exoneration or freedom, exactly “17 exonerations in response to DNA testing” (Lane). The accounts of this may seem minimal, but their importance is weighted on the life of a man. This can be further supported by the fact that “approximately 0.5 percent of all persons convicted of felony crimes in the United States are in fact innocent of the charges brought against them” (Lee et. al.). So, what is a fraction of a percent mean to any of us? Maybe not much, but I personally support that this number should not be anywhere other than zero. A significant use of this includes, as quoted by Lee and Walter
“DNA analysis to prove the innocence of a wrongfully convicted person in the United States involved the 1981 conviction of Robert Clark for several serious crimes, including kidnapping and armed robbery. Despite receiving two life sentences, Clark insisted he had not committed the crimes. In 2003, after more than two decades in prison, Clark began trying to obtain a court order to allow him to undergo DNA testing that would either connect him with the crime or prove his innocence. Two years later he was exonerated and set free.” (Lee et. al.)
This case shows not only how DNA testing can save lives, but a personal real-life account of how post-conviction testing can bring others to justice and prove those truly innocent unworthy to wait on death row. As it exists today “that there have been around 200 exonerations as a result of post-conviction DNA. On the other hand only 14 of these convicts were sentenced to death” (Sangillo). I consider that that fourteen out of two hundred is insignificant, but I encourage that in the future this amount of exonerations could relate to the death penalty, since as we have seen this has applied to less intense convictions. In relation to these cases, post-conviction DNA testing has been proved successful, but success can only be taken from the reliability of the testing.
RELIABILITY OF THE TESTING
The reliability of this testing must be taken into account when arguing this subject, as it should be the most efficient way to connect the convict to a given crime. Furthermore there are two reasons why “DNA analysis is well established, increasing the reliability of capital trials. The second reason is that the number of death sentences is down. There were only 111 in 2008, down about 66 percent from the 1994 peak of 328” (Lane). This as shown can create a better foundation for the system of capital punishment in the United States, and bring the innocent from their seats on death row. It is said that the “most accurate methods of connecting a suspect with a crime is to use DNA testing” (Lee et. al.) In opposition, other forms of conviction such as witnesses or accomplices are said to be “inherently unreliable” (Cahill 26). This supports that post-conviction DNA testing will not only improve innocent executions, but will bring reliability to what I believe, the entire court system. A foundation on which the convictions to a death sentence will become constant, and convict those holding guilt. I am, in fact, in no way alone with my stance on this controversy.
SUPPORT FROM LAWS,GROUPS, AND ORGANIZATIONS BACKING POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
Their is an array of different laws, groups, and organizations in support of post-conviction DNA testing, or parts within it. For example, the Habeas Corpus litigation is “focusing, as hoped by the movement for anti-death penalty supporting post-conviction DNA testing. This means that lawyers, if in the possession of new evidence that would find the convict innocent could put it into affect” (Lane). This I find is one of the most important pieces of this argument. Being that convicts may have been sitting on death row before post-conviction DNA testing was put into effect, using new evidence as presented by this litigation could bring innocence to those waiting to receive an execution date. In response it is strongly argued that “Most states have resisted using DNA testing after someone's been convicted and their appeals are over” (Edwards). This is neither fair, nor as I personally see it, humane. If their is new evidence supporting the life or death of a convict, then new information should absolutely be used. In addition to these positions, funding has also become a rough area when pursuing the testing. The Justice for all Act plays a major role in making this downside no longer present itself as a problem. The Justice for All Act, signed by President Bush “became a federal law in October of 2004. A part of this law provides $25 million over five years to provide post-conviction DNA testing in the states” (“Innocence”). This law has provided and as I believe will provide the funding needed to pursue post-conviction DNA testing on convicts, regardless might they deserve a second chance. Their lives should not weigh on money if truly innocent, but should money be wasted on those truly guilty. Is there a right answer to this question, or a wrong one? I stand behind, as do other forms of support such as the Justice For All Act and the Habeas Corpus litigation that DNA should be used in re-opened cases so that the innocent are not executed.
Overall, post conviction DNA testing could only benefit the road to freedom that stands in the way of those waiting on death row who are innocent. Post-conviction testing has not only been proven a number of times in past cases, but has proved reliable, efficient, and most importantly backed by law and other forms of support. The system of capital punishment in the United States should not be known today as, quoted by Thomas Cahill “ the innocent being executed by a system that has no regard for fairness and no regard for human life” (Cahill 124). This is the system we should stray away from. Post- conviction DNA testing provides a key for the innocent, and should be used to the fullest extent.
Works Cited
Cahill, Thomas. A saint on death row: the story of Dominique Green. New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009.
Edwards, Bob. "Interview: Peter Neufeld, Innocence Project, talks about critical role DNA testing can play in criminal cases." Morning Edition (NPR) (n.d.): Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.
"Innocence and the Death Penalty." America 07 Feb. 2005: 3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Lane, Charles. "End of Innocence." New Republic 241.18 (2010): 10. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Lee, M., and Andrew Walter. "Wrongful Convictions & DNA: An Overview." Points of View: Wrongful Convictions & DNA (2009): 1. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
Sangillo, Gregg. "Death and Innocence." National Journal 39.17 (2007): 36. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
