Overview
Evidence laws are crucial because they determine the kind of materials that can be presented to court and determine whether the accused persons are guilty or innocent. The Common Law’s rules on the admission of evidence have evolved over the years as courts continue to develop newer principles. From a personal perspective, one of the controversial principles emerged from the Supreme Court of the United States which held that prisoners have no right to demand DNA testing of the evidence despite the fact that such procedures can exonerate them.
Rightness of the Decision
It is not right for the court to deny prisoners the right to question the evidence that was used to convict them. Denying prisoners this right is especially wrong when it can be proved that a DNA test could be used to reverse a conviction and prove that the accused person was innocent. In fact, the dissenting justices observed that DNA tests have a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty. The only reason why the justices ruled against this demand is based on the constitutional principles that underpin admission of evidence (Champion, 2015). Despite this realization, people should be held in correctional facilities only if they are guilty. In the event of new evidence that can prove their innocence, the court should be ready to hear and deliberate on its viability ( Innocent inside Wrongful Conviction Cases, 2016) . It is legally and morally wrong to deny one a person the chance to exonerate themselves when new evidence emerges and tends to support their position.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Resources Required
DNA testing requires a lot of resources as it must be conducted in highly advanced biological labs and by skilled professionals. Some people might argue that the cost of conducting DNA tests should inspire the judiciary to prevent prisoners from requesting the same. However, one cannot fail to recognize that reference to the costs of conducting DNA is hypocritical. Over the years, research has proven maintaining prisoners in correctional facilities is utterly expensive. To avoid the expenses incurred by the government while providing the people in prisons, the courts should be ready to order DNA tests after requests are made by prisoners (Godsey, 2017). The process should be expedited when the prisoner offers to incur the costs of conducting the test. In fact, the state should shift the burden to the prisoners to ensure that only the people with honest belief in the exoneration should request DNA tests.
Possibility of Compensation
Indeed, prisoners should be compensated when their DNA tests reveal that they were wrongly convicted. In fact, the states should set a particular compensation limit for each year that the prisoner served in the incarceration centers. Notably, it is profoundly difficult for the prisoners to reenter the society after they have been released, despite their proven innocence (Clear et al, 2017). As such the society has an obligation to assist the people to reenter the society and start living normal lives. Specifically, the government should set aside a fund that will provide monetary compensation to the people and it should be based upon a set minimum for every year served by the individual. In addition, the government should ensure provide the immediate services to the individuals upon leaving prison. Such service include financial support to enable the individuals to acquire basic necessities including food and transportation (Evans, 2018). The government should help the individuals to secure housing in safe neighborhoods and protect them from stigmatization. The compensation package should also include medical care and counselling services to ensure that these individuals are assimilated back to the society. Finally, they should be provided with legal services that will enable them to obtain public benefits, remove criminal records and regain their material possessions.
References
Champion, D. J. (2015). Corrections in the United States: A contemporary perspective . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Cole, G. F. (2017). American corrections in brief . Boston MA. Cengage Learning.
Evans, K. M. (2018). Crime, prisons, and jails . Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage Learning.
Godsey, M. (2017). Blind injustice - a former prosecutor exposes the psychology and politics o . University Of California Press.
Innocent inside Wrongful Conviction Cases . (2016). New York Univ Pr.
