A Supreme(ly) Bad Decision

Last week, the Cupreme Court ruled that convicts do not have a Constitutional right to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence long after being found guilty.

We all know there are numbers of innocent people in prison, and a percentage of that are on Death Row. The article I read in the New York Times says there have been 240 exonerations due to DNA testing, and in 103 of those cases, the testing was able to identify the actual guilty party.

Why, with such evidence of a flawed justice system, would the Supreme Court not allow a person to take advantage of any opportunity to obtain the truth? To me, it just seems like due process.

The specific case brought before the court was concerning a man in Alaska, which is 1 of 4 states that do not allow access to DNA testing to inmates...this man's case is a little confusing, because it looks as though his lawyer actually turned down the testing during the trial because she felt it would incriminate him. But basically it led the court to conclude 5-4 that individual states may allow some ppl to get DNA tests, but it is NOT a guaranteed right under the Constitution....with that in mind, tell me how many ppl you know who do things they dont HAVE to do...especially things that add to their workload. This just makes it easier for states to deny a person a chance to clear his name. Now they have an excuse to say no, even when they shouldn't. The ruling doesn't necessarily say that states that do allow access to DNA testing should stop it, but I'm certain it will make things harder in the future.

Look at the case of Troy Davis, a Georgia man convicted of killing a police officer in 1991. He has been on Death Row since then, yet 6 of the witnesses have come back and admitted that they lied in their testimonies and were coerced into naming Davis as the killer. Even in the face of crumbling evidence, the DA is refusing to reopen the case and allow DNA testing that could save this man's life.

I attached a link so you can read in detail what the Supreme Court decided, if this is something that interests you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th