Innocent Or Guilty?
Repeat offenders, Recovered Offenders, Murders, Rapes, and other crimes that leave DNA behind.
1991 a man was convicted of rape and sits behind bars pleading for a DNA test to prove that he is innocent. In the state that he is in, they do offer DNA tests for inmates like this man.
He is willing to pay for the test, but in many areas all over, Prosecutors are making arguments on weather DNA testing is accurate. Prosecutors argue that there is no way of telling how many DNA Profiles will be found through this method.
In the 1990’s, DNA exonerated the first wave of prisoners. Law enforcement strongly disagreed to reopen old cases after these prisoners were released. Continued resistance by prosecutors is causing years of delay and in some cases, eliminating the chance to try other suspects because the statute of limitations has passed by the time the test is granted.
For three years this man has been in jail and pleading for a DNA test that could most likely set him free. He was placed at the scene by three witnesses which caused no reason to do DNA testing. Brandon L. Garret, a professor at the University of Virgina school of law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in one out of five cases.
Most cases are argued that DNA testing is unnecessary. Only 98 of those cases out of 225 are granted DNA testing. In 1986 a man was convicted of stabbing a shop keeper. DNA found at that crime was told to the courts that it was too degraded of testing to prove his innocence.
Defense lawyers argue that scientific advances like the ability to identify multiple DNA profiles in a single sample are ignored. They also argue that prove DNA testing has been ignored due to people that it has exonerated in the past. DNA also refutes any other type of evidence over the past few years.
Most people are denied DNA testing due to over whelming evidence presented at the trial. Ok so others saw the person hanging around, or the person is known to be a trouble maker, these are just fingers pointing. Do the DNA test and if the person is guilty than it will show up.
If the person is innocent than that would also be proven. In order to get granted a DNA test, the courts have to prove a reasonable possibility that the person is innocent.
DNA arguments have delayed alot of trials of innocent people that spend their lives behind bars for a crime they did not commit. DNA is unique in every way. Unless you are an identical twin, there is no one out there with the same DNA profile.
There has been over 38 executions in the United States where DNA could have proven the innocence of these people. One man spent a life time in jail and was finally exonerated after his DNA was not a match to the DNA that was found.
The man said that he should have finished school, got married and had a family of his own. This shows that the system is flawed. DNA has come along ways since it’s first reporting profile in 1984 by Sir Alec Jeffery’s at the University of Leicester in England.
There is one more augment about using DNA testing that prosecutors use. They say that most criminals will use this to delay their trials and this will slow down the system from sending them away. Most cases where a person pleads innocent and there is a chance that they are a repeat offender, the courts must find a reasonable possibility that that person is not the one.
DNA can exonerate alot of innocent people but it is hard to get the grant or appeal to have it done. DNA testing is offered but you have to wait several years before you find out if your DNA will be tested.