Convicted prisoners deserve right to DNA testing

A wrongly convicted criminal serving time might not get access to all the evidence he or she needs thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The court decided Thursday that access to DNA testing for convicted prisoners isn’t a constitutional right, despite at least 232 cases having been overturned by DNA evidence in the U.S.

On a state-by-state basis, the court’s opinion appears to be in the minority. Forty-six states, including the federal government, have enacted laws granting convicts access to DNA testing. Only Alaska, Alabama, Massachusetts and Oklahoma don’t allow such tests. However, justices only rule on what is constitutional, not what’s popular. And they wrongly think prisoners don’t have the right to all the evidence against them.

The ruling is contrary to everything the American justice system stands for. The burden of proof always has been on the state. It is up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, and you are afforded plenty of opportunities for defense. Defendants don’t have to worry about incriminating themselves, always have a right to a jury and a right to representation. The U.S. version of justice seems to be that it’s better to let a guilty person go than punish an innocent one. And that’s why this decision doesn’t make sense.

Defendants are afforded every opportunity to exonerate themselves, except apparently when it comes to DNA. States that oppose testing have said it’s too expensive to handle prisoner’s tests and the calls for testing would crowd the court system. Only prisoners who were convicted prior to when DNA testing was available are affected by this decision, so states seem to be afraid that courts will be flooded with test requests from convicts who are only hoping to get lucky and have their sentence overturned.

If a DNA test did bring an old case back to court, a retrial could be difficult. Witnesses might not be able to testify again or the prosecution might not be able to try the defendant as effectively as before. It’s possible a guilty prisoner might get off because of a technicality.

These concerns are greatly overblown. A retrial only can be given at the discretion of a judge, which would require some serious convincing. A judge likely wouldn’t call for a new trial based on one piece of evidence like a DNA test. Retrials are expensive and a judge won’t preside over one unless it’s absolutely necessary. Allowing prisoners access to DNA won’t result in the free-for-all the opposers seem to think it will.

Even if some of these tests lead to new trials, it doesn’t mean the convict will sneak out of paying their debt to society. The criminal wouldn’t have been convicted in the first place if the prosecution didn’t have plenty of evidence to support their argument. Even those with little faith in the justice system can say that being convicted takes more than a rumor.

Guilty people going free is the occasional cost of making sure innocent citizens stay out of jail. There’s always a chance that bad people will cheat the system, as there is with any other part of life. But that doesn’t mean we should try and stop them by potentially denying innocent people the right to clear their names.