I don’t like the death penalty. Never have. Not because I don’t believe in its societal role as a deterrent or as a retributive tool – not even because it is still unknown whether the inmate feels a tremendous amount of pain before they pass on. I don’t like it because a) one innocent person being put to death is too many, and b) the death penalty is racist. The second part is for another day and another rant, but the first part is definitely relevant. William Osborne and Hank Skinner are two men who would have something to say about this. The former unfortunately was lost to the system, but Skinner is, for the moment, still alive.
William Osborne was convicted of viciously attacking an Anchorage woman sixteen years ago. Before his execution, he filed a plea to have DNA evidence tested that wasn’t available when he was being tried. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that inmates can’t use federal civil rights law to carry out this end.
Hank Skinner, on the other hand, was slightly more fortunate – of course, that’s if you can consider anyone fortunate who finds themselves on death row. Skinner was sentenced to death after being accused of committing a triple homicide. An hour before his execution in March – after having already had his last meal of a bacon cheeseburger and various other last-meal-type foods – he received a stay of execution from the Supreme Court. 44 states have laws that provide for inmates’ rights to biological testing after conviction, but Alaska and Texas are not among that number.
So, what’s important about giving death row inmates DNA testing rights? Everything. As Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissenting opinion to Osborne’s case, "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not the least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done in this case." (Bill Mears)
How could we even entertain the thought of not knowing the full truth before putting someone to death? The ideals of this country are threatened by laziness and an irrational thirst for blood. The right man should be punished, but we have to be absolutely sure we know the right person is getting punished. If there is even a glimmer of doubt about the guilt of the accused, then it should be investigated and either put to rest or brought to light after careful examination. Of course, you can’t go on a fool’s mission just because a convict gives you some inconsequential suggestion, but if there’s a substantial lead, then it seems right that you would pursue possible evidence that could exonerate a man about to lose his life needlessly. Our judicial system is supposed to run on the premise that a man is innocent until proven guilty, yet right now, the system seems to be guilty until proven innocent.
Before someone is put to death, it must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty just as in any other crime. If DNA evidence exists that would only require simple testing, then it would be a crime not to test it. The Osborne case decision was a travesty that shakes the integrity of the Court, and hopefully, this injustice will no longer exist.
Even you or I could be sitting awaiting lethal injection for a crime we didn’t do. Then maybe we would care. This nightmare must end.
Works Cited:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-dna-20101014,0,4052952.story
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-18/justice/rapist.dna_1_dna-testing-post-conviction-access-biological-evidence?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is indeed valid to accumulate as much evidence as possible to maximize the justice of any punishment, including both imprisonment and lethal injection. If this situation encompasses DNA sequencing and comparisons, then in an ideal world, DNA analysis would be used in any situation possible. Previously, sequencing costs and efficiency would have made DNA evidence too difficult scientifically; now, there are no such restrictions.
There has been considerable progress in DNA sequencing technology since the Human Genome Project (HGP), a marked achievement in sequencing technologies. Indeed, the HGP took thirteen years to mainly “identify, determine, and store” the human genome (1). The techniques used in 1985 (comparable to techniques used at the start of the HGP) functioned at approximately 0.012% of the rate of modern techniques. Needless to say, modern techniques are also cheaper (2).
It is not necessary to sequence entire genomes to obtain genetic forensic evidence, but costs and rates of sequencing and comparison would clearly be lessened. Cost is indeed becoming a negligible issue in forensic DNA evidence. A few decades ago, we could not feasibly sequence quickly or efficiently enough to genetically analyze most (if not all) cases. Just because we were not technologically advanced enough for conclusive justice in the past does not mean we cannot be now. Delaying forensic DNA evidence is just trading the ideal for excuses.
The Supreme Court ruling arguing against civil rights for inmates is in itself invalid. It is not a question of whether the inmate has the right to ask for further analysis; rather, it is an issue of whether the judicial system has a right to avoid maximizing justice. Logically, the judicial system should be doing its job – it should seek any evidence that could add to the legitimacy of a punishment, regardless of its magnitude. The justice department’s mission statement mentions “[seeking] just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior” (3). This comes with a price, but that price is reducing with advancing genetic sequencing technologies.
Sources:
1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
2. http://www.bernstein.com/CmsObjectPC/pdfs/50016_NewTechSpurRaceAffGenSeq.pdf
3. http://www.justice.gov/02organizations/about.html
It is indeed valid to accumulate as much evidence as possible to maximize the justice of any punishment, including both imprisonment and lethal injection. If this situation encompasses DNA sequencing and comparisons, then in an ideal world, DNA analysis would be used in any situation possible. Previously, sequencing costs and efficiency would have made DNA evidence too difficult scientifically; now, there are no such restrictions.
There has been considerable progress in DNA sequencing technology since the Human Genome Project (HGP), a marked achievement in sequencing technologies. Indeed, the HGP took thirteen years to mainly “identify, determine, and store” the human genome (1). The techniques used in 1985 (comparable to techniques used at the start of the HGP) functioned at approximately 0.012% of the rate of modern techniques. Needless to say, modern techniques are also cheaper (2).
It is not necessary to sequence entire genomes to obtain genetic forensic evidence, but costs and rates of sequencing and comparison would clearly be lessened. Cost is indeed becoming a negligible issue in forensic DNA evidence. A few decades ago, we could not feasibly sequence quickly or efficiently enough to genetically analyze most (if not all) cases. Just because we were not technologically advanced enough for conclusive justice in the past does not mean we cannot be now. Delaying forensic DNA evidence is just trading the ideal for excuses.
The Supreme Court ruling arguing against civil rights for inmates is in itself invalid. It is not a question of whether the inmate has the right to ask for further analysis; rather, it is an issue of whether the judicial system has a right to avoid maximizing justice. Logically, the judicial system should be doing its job – it should seek any evidence that could add to the legitimacy of a punishment, regardless of its magnitude. The justice department’s mission statement mentions “[seeking] just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior” (3). This comes with a price, but that price is reducing with advancing genetic sequencing technologies.
Sources:
1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
2. http://www.bernstein.com/CmsObjectPC/pdfs/50016_NewTechSpurRaceAffGenSeq.pdf
3. http://www.justice.gov/02organizations/about.html
Post a Comment