DNA Testing

So here's another problem caused by those interested in the maintenance of status quo. Why do the solutions to so many problems in our land come squarely up against the interests of a select few? It makes me weary.

I wonder if the desire to make someone accountable for a crime (even if he may be the wrong person), is restricted to DA's. I sense that a lot of society feels this way (they just want to believe that the guy they got is guilty). Racial justice used to be a lot worse. A black man did the crime. So what if we convict the wrong black man, he had it coming because he was a member of the race. Now, that said, I think DNA testing is pretty expensive, so we don't want to be doing it at state expense for minor offenses. I suspect it's aura of truthiness is greater than its actual ability to sort things out. I would think that in many cases where samples are contaminated, it might not be so clear. But, overall I think you have a good case.

I've never really understood the "endless appeals" argument. Either there is DNA evidence or there isn't. If there is, it either matches a suspect or it doesn't. End of appeal. The only real route to "endless appeals" would be if the police/DA began wholesale destruction of evidence to avoid testing.

We are, after all, in favor of not imprisoning innocent people. Um, no. Lots of putative liberals on your blogroll refuse to even consider that the policies they endorse encourage the imprisoning of innocent people. If you mention the possibility they rage against you as rape apologizer and wife beater. For instance, we all want to stop rape, but statistical theory shows that a process to drive down false negatives will drive up false positives. But the Duke students? Well that was a positive learning experience and well, your blogroll says it better than I: "In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair." Remember Kevin, that was said AFTER the charges had been dropped. Imprisoning the innocent? It's yet another way that modern feminist claims are not aligned with progressive liberalism, and I thank you for reminding us of that.

How hard is DNA testing Kevin? I'd try to make it less expensive not more. I'd try to make it pro-forma and not have too many judges get in the way. You want a test? You got it. It's better that 10 guilty go free than jail one innocent. If that means DNA testing, it seems a small price to pay. Make it a dime a dozen.

"If you're guilty, then you know perfectly well that DNA isn't going to get you off the hook. So why bother? That's why I've never found this argument very persuasive. Prisoners who know they're guilty have little incentive to demand DNA tests." Let me preface this by saying that I'm generally in favor of expanding access to DNA testing... but, as someone who handles prisoners' appeals for a living, I feel pretty confident in saying that there absolutely will be a huge surge in testing demands. Primarily, I think you're looking at the incentive question from the wrong direction. If you've spent the last 20 years in prison, you've got 20 more years left on your sentence, and all of a sudden you find out that you have a right to DNA testing, what's your incentive *not* to request it, even if you know you're guilty? If it proves conclusively that you're guilty, big deal - you're already in prison and you've probably already exhausted all your other routes for appeal anyway, so no harm, no foul. If it's inconclusive, though, you might be able to make some hay of the tests for another round of appeals/habeas petitions (even if they might turn out to be unsuccessful). And if nothing else, you've managed to keep yourself occupied for a few months. Basically, there's no downside from the prisoners' perspective, whether they're actually guilty or not (and don't discount the number of actually guilty people who are thoroughly convinced of their innocence - let's just say it's a non-negligible number). Like I say, I'm generally in favor of expanding access. But I think you're right that there would have to be some sort of threshold standard that the courts could use to sift out the frivolous claims, and I think that standard might end up being somewhat more stringent than you might hope, especially given the sheer volume of frivolous claims that would be filed.

Who doesn't care if innocents are convicted? Lots of cops, who mostly want to close cases by whatever means possible, so they can be promoted. Lots of prosecutors, so they can maybe run for Attorney General someday and maybe Governor, which will only happen if they have lots of scalps on their belts. And evidently lots of victims, or victims' families, who seem to feel gratified that someone was punished, even if it was the wrong guy.

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/jan/31/dps_crime_lab_unveils_new_...

The new process allows investigators to extract a DNA profile from only eight to 10 cells. Previously, technicians needed at least 40 to 50 cells or the size of a quarter, said Todd Griffith, the state crime laboratory superintendent. The new technique increase detection limits tenfold. ... The Payson Police Department along with agencies around the state sends evidence to the DPS laboratory for testing. It costs around $475 and takes four to six weeks to conduct a DNA profiling test. Previously the Payson PD did not have to pay for DPS crime lab services, but in July, the legislature, looking to balance the state’s budget, cut the crime lab budget by half to $7.8 million. Shortly after the cut, DPS announced that all state agencies, including fire, police, sheriff’s departments and medical examiners’ offices would now get a bill for lab work.

You´re moaning about $475? Or better said $8 million for a state? Maybe even some more to enlarge capacity if needed? I will never understand Americans! By the way, nobody mentioned it yet. But if an innocent is arrested and prosecuted (because no DNA testing was done) the real criminal is still free. And probably pretty safe because the police will have stopped looking for another suspect. Don´t you think any new victim/s might consider $500 or $1000 cheap if it helps to keep the police looking for the real criminal?

And frankly, DA's who block DNA tests should also be sanctioned.

I'll see that and raise you. DA's who get the wrong person convicted should be imprisoned for helping the actual criminal escape justice. They should be executed if it was a death penalty case, and an innocent(yeah, there's a lot of grey) person is put to death. Make the police involved in investigating the case subject to the same standards, and you'll see a lot more use of DNA. -kenga

Cops set up Prisoner's Dilemma situations all the time to get Suspect A to confess that he was the lookout while Suspect B stabbed the victim -- or vice-versa, they don't really care as long as one of them confesses. So, sometimes the lookout gets life for murder while the stabber gets 5 years because the stabber confessed first and blamed the lookout. Cops don't like a DNA test might because it might show that the guy who got life didn't hold the knife, ruining their confession. But, the cops feel like they came close enough to justice, so why do a DNA test?