To date, there have been 261 post-conviction exonerations in the United States resulting from newly discovered DNA evidence, according to the non-profit Innocence Project organization. The average sentence of these 261 individuals is 13 years, and 13 of them had previously been sentenced to death.
Death penalty abolitionists raise an even more stinging indictment by invoking the possibility of using DNA evidence to contend a state has executed an innocent person, a charge many are leveling against the state of Texas now. Claude Jones was executed December 2000 for a 1989 robbery that resulted in a homicide which he maintained he did not commit. Now, it has been discovered that the one piece of physical evidence linking Jones to the scene of the crime – a single hair – was not his.
His story is one of a justice system gone awry; a system that delivers less justice to those who cannot afford to hire qualified legal counsel and forensic experts to aid in their defense. Of course, Jones had the deck stacked against him from the start, as DNA forensic science was not in use in criminal trials when he was convicted in 1990. At that time, determination of whether a suspect was guilty hinged upon a microscopic examination of hair, something today’s forensic scientists acknowledge is inadequate with regard to establishing proof in criminal proceedings.
At this time, not all state courts are required to examine post-conviction DNA evidence if it is found. Alaska was the 48th state to pass a law allowing prisoners access to post-conviction DNA testing in an attempt to prove their innocence – Oklahoma and Massachusetts still have no such laws. And, for those states with statutes on the books, there are those who allege that they are woefully inadequate. Petitions for testing are frequently denied without appeal, some states do not allow exoneration for an individual who originally pled guilty and often DNA evidence is not preserved following a conviction.
The counterargument is that allowing access to DNA testing can be a costly slippery slope when truly guilty individuals needlessly expend state resources, and only serve to create a margin of error or doubt where none should exist. Others contend that the system may not be perfect, but that focusing on the exception ‘swallows the rule.’ In other words, turning attention toward the very few mistakes that have been made only weakens the system.
Both sides have valid arguments, and the answer likely falls somewhere in the middle. It will be up to future generations and further refinement of the legal and criminal justice system to find the proper balance.
