I just read that the Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners can file federal civil-rights lawsuits that seek DNA testing of crime-scene evidence.
I did not know this but in 2009, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, ruled that prisoners had NO Constitutional right to demand DNA testing. OK I can see where the Constitution could not address DNA testing just like it cannot address many modern day issues that were not present when the Constitution was written but…
I guess the 2009 decision left it up to the states to decide if prisoners have rights to DNA testing that could potentially prove their guilt or innocence.
But what I have been hearing and seeing is that state prosecutors (who, as you know, I think are mostly assholes) have opposed the right of prisoners to seek DNA testing to prove their innocence because why?
I feel prosecutors, who are always running for higher office, want a perfect conviction rate so they can say in their propaganda, that they put many BAD guys away…no matter if they were guilty or innocent.
Many hundreds of CONVICTED prisoners, some on death row, have been found innocent by DNA evidence and these asshole prosecutors, knowing this to be true, still want to deny prisoners the right to have DNA evidence tested JUST IN CASE THE DNA CAN PROVE THEM INNOCENT? I am sorry, I just cannot see the logic in their objection except for their fear that their conviction would be overturned and they would be shown to have convicted an innocent man.
The Supreme Court justices that voted AGAINST granting a prisoner the right to at least file a civil-rights lawsuit to have DNA evidence tested were the predictable Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito but not Anthony Kennedy who usually is a swing vote and not part of the extreme right wing. On the other hand, Roberts and Scalia broke with their conservative friends and voted FOR the majority decision…I would have to look at the legal details to answer why they voted the way they voted…maybe later.
BUT I am glad some semblance of reason and fairness prevailed in this decision because I believe that all available evidence, especially DNA evidence that is available and can be tested, should be tested as a matter of course otherwise you cannot absolutely say if a person is 100% guilty or innocent.
Why is this such a hard concept to accept?
No comments:
Post a Comment