Several years ago, in 2009, the US Supreme Court
ruled that convicted inmates do not have a right to DNA testing.
Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, even though the technology provides an "unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty."
However, they have apparently
reversed this ruling as of March, 2011:
DNA evidence promises to become an even bigger part of criminal cases following a Supreme Court ruling on Monday that gives prisoners the right to file post-conviction civil suits seeing access to DNA evidence that was not tested at the time of trials.
That being said, one of two severe objections to capital punishment is ameliorated somewhat (that is to say not only the all-too-real executions of people for crimes they did not commit but also what seems like express state indifference to this fact); we are left with the tripartite question of deterrence versus rehabilitation vs punishment.
The death penalty doesn't appear to have an appreciable deterrence effect. The knowledge that one could be executed for a capital crime does not, by itself, stop those who are intent on committing one. Further, cold murderers are less likely than other offenders to be rehabilitated. Those that are not convicted of capital crimes are "punished" with life sentences but, with no hope of release, they have nothing at all to lose.
And what of the families and friends of the victims? Is locking someone up for life really "justice" if it does not provoke the aggressor(s) to regret and repentance, merely just providing them a different environment in which to sink to more depraved depths?
It would appear neither deterrence, nor rehabilitation, nor so-called punitive action get the job done. The first two do not work on a significant level and the third does not provide justice for the victim on an appreciable level.
So what's the alternative? I'm reminded of an HL Mencken quote:
Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one at least is disposed of.
Unfortunately, for the benefit of our souls, we must ultimately cling to an unrealistic belief that "the system" balances things out, lest we submit to cynicism and praise the system as a human garbage disposal.
That being said, the death penalty can be opposed on moral and ethical grounds but can just as well be supported by the very same ethical arguments that are used to condemn it. Likewise with philosophy, practicality, reasoning, empirical evidence, pragmatism, and practicality.
When all these issues are considered, the issue is often reduced to how one feels about the amount of money spent on housing violent offenders for life. But executing someone isn't "cheap" - appeals and re-trials cost time and money. In this day in age it's not uncommon for a convicted murderer to spend upwards of 15 years awaiting execution.
If we're going to maintain capital punishment we must streamline it to accomodate fair trials, DNA evidence, appeals, etc.
without drawing the process out for decades. This means we must expand the concept of habeas corpus itself to include not only the right to a speedy trial but to a speedy judgement - for the sake of both the condemned and the people (for it has been shown that the long wait on death row induces a kind of reflective mortality related psychosis which could be considered cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitutional).
Capital punishment, as it currently exists, is thoroughly unacceptable.
