Report on Prisons and Contemporary Issues
Prisonner's Rights to DNA Testing
A person convicted of a crime would nonetheless lose his constitutional rights for freedom. The objective of court trials is to weigh the evidence that all parties have presented to justify arguments of innocence or guilt. A court trial is the best time for any accused to prove his innocence of a crime and he should maximize that opportunity to do his best to defend himself. However, trials are not just about facts and evidence it's also about possibilities. Possibilities that the accused is actually innocent, despite the evidence pointing at him. As soon as the verdict is announced guilty, it means the accused is stripped of his rights to be free in the society, but it doesn't mean he loses his right to be heard further. The state should continue to hear the other side of the story and that includes allowing the prisoner to request for DNA test when being called for. The Supreme Court ruled that DNA test is not a constitutional right of a prisoner after a vote of 5-4 (Savage, 2009).
Apparently, that is not the right decision to make even if Chief Justice John G. Roberts J.r stresses that they are considering judicial restraint. Looking closely into the argument that the Supreme Court is saying about prisoner request for DNA test being unconstitutional, it is clear that the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty in finding absolute justice. It may be correct that prisoners rights are forfeited, but the extent of forfeiting is not well defined. Even prisoners has the right for justice particularly those who were innocently incarcerated. If the only way they can get their freedom back is through DNA testing, then there is no point denying them of that right. There are basis that justifies the right for DNA test one of them is the Freedom of Information Act. It permits access to tangible biological materials that may constitute evidence required for post-conviction request for DNA testing (Travis and Asplen, 1999, p.13). Another justification of that right is the 1983 Civil Rights Act that provides rights of access to testing on the basis that the court acted upon the interpretation of State law when they refuse access.
However, that right must remain and should only be imposed with utmost judgement accuracy because it can be used by real criminals to escape justice. The right to request should be given with due consideration to only to prisoners that are wrongfully accused. The task of determining, which is eligible and which are not is a daunting task that is why certaincriteria and conditions have to be in place. The accused can make a motion before the same trial court that pronounced his verdict. The testing should comply with FBI requirements and criteria set forth by NDIS. The request should qualify as a tangible material to the defense of the prisoner. It should also be related to the investigation leading to the judgement. The DNA test should be a recent one and if a previous test was done, the new test should be proven to provide more accurate and probative to identity of the original perpetrator ("Request for postconviction DNA testing", 2012, p.1). Finally, the defendant should sign a sworn affidavit of Innocence.
If the DNA tests revealed that the prisoner was wrongfully accused. Therefore, he should be compensated for it. Normally, when a person was aggravated and or feels that he experienced inconvenience because of mistakes made by service providers for example would ask to be compensated for the inconvenience caused. The same goes with prisoners that were proven to be innocent. This is because incarceration would scar them for life, it ruins their reputation in the society and not to mention the difficulty of acquiring social acceptance. Therefore, the inconvenience caused by incarceration by mistakes tremendous and calls for an appropriate compensation in return. About one third of the exonerated prisoners were not compensated after suffering injustice.
Exonerated people have no money, transportion, healthcare, housing, job and with a criminal record that never gets cleared after proving innocence. This entails life-long punishment on their side and the state should have the initiative and responsibility to restore the life taken away from the person. Exonerated individuals are entitled to $50,000 per year depending on the length of time in incarceration along with re-entry program that focuses on job training, legal services, education and health (Innocenceproject.org, N.D.). Those are the provisions of compensation enacted by the Congress for wrongfully accused people. However, it may have been enough to say that allowances and re-entry programs can fix their broken lives.
There should also be a provision in the law that would entirely erase criminal records related to their wrongful incarceration. If not to be erased at least keep the records off the public eye. This is because, the public has as mind-set that when a person is a former inmate he cannot be trusted, despite the fact that he was innocent. Therefore, incarceration by mistake should be kept out off the public records. Finally, the compensation programs are not enough, the exonerated person should be entitled to re-acquire the properties he originally possessed before incarceration.
References
Innocenceproject.org (n.d.). Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted. Innocence Project. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Compensation.php
Ncga.state.nc.us (2012). 15A-269. Request for postconviction DNA testing. G.S. 15A-269, 1.
Savage, D. G. (2009, June 19). Supreme Court rules DNA tests for prisoners not a constitutional right. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 2012, from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/19/nation/na-court-dna19
Travis, J., & Asplen, C. (1999). Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests. Report from NIJ, 13.
