Do convicts have a right to access samples for DNA testing?



Do convicts have a right to access samples for DNA testing?

Introduction

DNA sampling and its use in the convicting criminals has been an asset to the judicial system. At times it is critical to getting the right conviction. This paper looks at an article in favor of allowing post conviction DNA sampling rights, followed by its analysis.

Discussion

Article Summary

In their article, Hoffmann and King claim that since the year 1989, DNA testing has helped vindicate up to 269 people. This number proves that guilty verdicts are not entirely reliable and there exists a possibility that an innocent is being sentenced for a crime he has not committed. Numerous states are taking the required steps in order to reduce and eliminate wrong convictions; Illinois eventually abolished capital punishments. On the way to the decision for abolishment, Illinois legislature saw numerous additions to help prevent wrong convictions. The authors go on to elaborate that despite the reforms, Illinois and other states will continue to be vulnerable to wrongly convicting innocents. It is the way the system has been designed. The solution lies in the reformation of American ideals, with respect to the landmark 1963 case of Gideon vs. Wainwright (Hoffmann & King, 2011).

Hoffmann and King believe that the inadequacy of the defense representation is one the biggest causes for wrong convictions. They also believe that it must be attacked from the front and head on. Active participation from the public is required for the resolution of this problem. As a society, it can be made sure that all defendants receive adequate and skill assistance and counsel. Such counsel has been guaranteed to every individual by the United States Constitution. The article goes on to highlight a few key points which, if implemented, can greatly reduce the incorrect conviction rates and reduce it to a minimum (Hoffmann & King, 2011).

Firstly, Hoffmann and King suggest that all states should “Preserve and allow reasonable post conviction access to biological evidence,” (Hoffmann & King, 2011, pp. 59-60). The biological evidence they speak of is DNA samples, in context with relevant scientific and technological advancements. Convicts should also be provided ample opportunity to test and analyze the biological evidence in question, should it prove to be essential to their innocence. Secondly, improved state remedies must be created to cater to post conviction claims of innocence. States must mimic ...