Pages: 1

 

2009-06-18 13:41:31
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5883

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In a 5-4 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority, the court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions.

William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. A federal appeals court said he had a right to conduct the test.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project, which works to free people who were wrongly convicted.
https://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh207/m8v2/panic-1.png
THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO IMPRISON US ALL!! / joke
Seriously though I would certainly hope that they would be given the right to prove their innocence beyond any doubt.
2009-06-18 13:45:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina
Wow...  I tend to agree with the conservative Justices, but they were WAY off with this one.

What the fuck....
2009-06-18 13:47:34
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6930|949

No, High Court rules in favor of states rights.  As fucked up as the actual case is, they should be arguing in Alaska, not the SCOTUS (as the acronym fags call it).  It's actually a good ruling limiting federal involvement in state law.  That being said, it is utterly ridiculous that the state can order DNA testing on an alleged criminal but the alleged criminal cannot do the same to a piece of evidence to prove his innocence.  The sad thing is that the Prosecutors fought the testing - whatever happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and ethics in law?
2009-06-18 13:48:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, High Court rules in favor of states rights.  As fucked up as the actual case is, they should be arguing in Alaska, not the SCOTUS (as the acronym fags call it).  It's actually a good ruling limiting federal involvement in state law.  That being said, it is utterly ridiculous that the state can order DNA testing on an alleged criminal but the alleged criminal cannot do the same to a piece of evidence to prove his innocence.  The sad thing is that the Prosecutors fought the testing - whatever happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and ethics in law?
I would argue that this goes beyond states' rights.  If there's anything the Constitution does protect, it's your ability to prove your innocence in a court of law.
2009-06-18 21:28:19
Karbin
Member
+42|6592

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, High Court rules in favor of states rights.  As fucked up as the actual case is, they should be arguing in Alaska, not the SCOTUS (as the acronym fags call it).  It's actually a good ruling limiting federal involvement in state law.  That being said, it is utterly ridiculous that the state can order DNA testing on an alleged criminal but the alleged criminal cannot do the same to a piece of evidence to prove his innocence.  The sad thing is that the Prosecutors fought the testing - whatever happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and ethics in law?
I would argue that this goes beyond states' rights.  If there's anything the Constitution does protect, it's your ability to prove your innocence in a court of law.
The States don't want to be placed in the position that ALL convicts can get a second day in court.
If more people are found to be innocent by DNA, think of the law suits, the loss of confidants in the law by the victims and eye witness's.
Do I agree with SCOTUS... no.
If the convict as the confidence in their innocence to have the state do a DNA test, then it should be done. Shouldn't need to go to any court to compel the state to do the test.
2009-06-18 22:33:51
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6979|Disaster Free Zone

Karbin wrote:

If more people are found to be innocent by DNA, think of the law suits, the loss of confidants in the law by the victims and eye witness's.
Good. Innocent people should be free, they also should be compensated for their lives being ruined by some dumbshit eye witness.
There are people in prison who are innocent and the guilty ones are therefore still free, anything should be done to prevent this.
2009-06-18 22:43:58
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6963|NT, like Mick Dundee

Memory is malleable, most eye-witness accounts cannot be trusted on their own and must be corroborated imo.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-06-18 23:29:59
Karbin
Member
+42|6592

DrunkFace wrote:

Karbin wrote:

If more people are found to be innocent by DNA, think of the law suits, the loss of confidants in the law by the victims and eye witness's.
Good. Innocent people should be free, they also should be compensated for their lives being ruined by some dumbshit eye witness.
There are people in prison who are innocent and the guilty ones are therefore still free, anything should be done to prevent this.
I agree with you, just stating whats probably going on behind the scene's with the DA's.
Things like the cost of testing old case's when they can't keep up with the new ones. Let alone the payouts on wrongful convictions.

All older case's should be checked, IF, big IF, there is testable evidence.
2009-06-19 02:29:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6879|SE London

Pretty fucked up tbh.
2009-06-19 07:34:47
NgoDamWei
Member
+7|5961|Western North Carolina
I think on a federal level this was correct as to 'rights'.  But I also feel that every state inmate is entitled (not to abuse the term as was done elsewhere) to at least 1 test and in severe cases perhaps two or three for obvious reasons by different sources.

The numbers or inmates found innocent by such testing makes it more a state obligation.
2009-06-19 11:04:32
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6943
yeah this is stupid they don care if u are innocent, since the DNA testing costs the state money, so they rather save money, so in order words u fooked....
2009-06-19 14:38:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

NgoDamWei wrote:

I think on a federal level this was correct as to 'rights'.  But I also feel that every state inmate is entitled (not to abuse the term as was done elsewhere) to at least 1 test and in severe cases perhaps two or three for obvious reasons by different sources.

The numbers or inmates found innocent by such testing makes it more a state obligation.
Because some states have made it clear that determining guilt and innocence means less to them than a budget, I'd say this issue MUST become a federal one.

Otherwise, the justice system in many states is basically a joke.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard