US Supreme Courtīs DNA Ruling
Rizwan Ghani
June 19, 2009
The LA Times editorial (The Supreme Court's DNA ruling: Wrong on rights, dated June 17, 2009) has voiced dismay of millions within US and rest of the world on the subject. It reads, "Roberts and Stevens disagree about how to read the court's precedents, but a more basic difference between the majority and the minority is insensitivity to the poignant predicament of an imprisoned man denied an opportunity to clear himself." (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna19-2009jun19,0,2229462.story).
The New York Times editorial on the subject (Unparalleled and Denied, dated June 19, 2009) has rightly pointed out that, "the chief justice and his concurring colleagues have their priorities all wrong." The four dissenting judges have aptly identified that, "Alaska was wrong to block testing when DNA technology is available that may prove someone is unjustly being kept behind bars." Justice Stevensīs opinion in his dissent is spot-on. "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
The New York Times editorial has rightly questioned Obama administrationīs siding with Alaska on the issue. I am of the opinion that US Supreme Court should without any further delay revisit and review its own judgment for following reasons. Justice should not be denied due to gaps in laws failing to evolve with growing technologies. The law has to catch up with the technology not otherwise. The majority of justices may have served the justice but it is not "seen" as served by the people on the street under the "CSI Phenomenon". The US Supreme Court cannot challenge the science with law alone. It needs to recognize the power of technology in fighting crime and serving justice. The judges need to revisit the decision to incorporate role of advance technology to dispense transparent judgments based on advance technology evidence.
Today, itīs DNA. Tomorrow, most likely it is going to be acoustics (recording conversations at the time of crime). If Republican judges have shamelessly tolerated Bushīs "pre-crime" warrantless wiretapping (eves dropping) on-lines of "Minority Report" in violation of nationīs Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the constitution for vested stakes. If Bronze Bull Statue outside NY Stock Exchange can occupy the public place illegally since 1983, why canīt admission of DNA be allowed to help hapless prisoners prove their innocence. However belated it may be! After all laws are made for people not otherwise. Shouldnīt the justices act in the interest of Main street, also?
The courtīs decision is not only going to have adverse consequences for imprisoned individuals within US but the prisoners in the rest of the world who are banking on the modern technology to prove their innocence. White House, legal experts and Human Rights organizations need to take steps to ensure that technology is used to help the innocent and help courts pass judgments that can withhold test of modern technology at any given time. Judgments like law cannot stay frozen in time. It must serve human beings at all times in all ages and with all available technologies etc. The case in point is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Today, majority of the states in the world in step with the US Supreme Court ruling recognize defendantīs fundamental right to legal counsel and accordingly provide a lawyer to those who cannot afford one.
"The US Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ruling mandated state and local courts had to provide lawyer only for offenses for which capital punishment was possible. Clarence Earl Gideon was tried for burglary in Florida in 1961 and asked the court to provide a lawyer because he could not afford one. The court refused; Gideon conducted his own defense and was convicted. He then sent a petition to the Supreme Court. Louie L. Wainwright, head of the Florida prison system, was named defendant in the case."
"In Gideon v. Wainwright the Court overruled an earlier decision that the right to legal counsel was not guaranteed in state criminal cases. The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, for the first time stated that anyone accused of a crime had a fundamental right to legal counsel. Another trial was held. Gideon was defended by a court-appointed lawyer and was acquitted."
"The Supreme Court ruled that because the legal process is so complex, the state must provide a lawyer at its own expense to any defendant in a criminal trial. Although having a lawyer does not, of course, guarantee a fair trial, not having a lawyer makes it much more likely that the legal process will be unfair, because police and prosecutors will have far fewer incentives to follow investigative leads and constitutional procedures. Gideon and later cases that extended the right to counsel make it less likely that innocent people will be brought to trial on trumped-up charges and more likely that even the guilty will be dealt with fairly." (Ten Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, Encarta 2008)
The US Supreme Court ruling in favor of the (belated) use of (advance) DNA technology could have set an historic precedent on lines of Gideon v. Wainwright. The judges by revisiting the case can still make history. We must remember that it is not the end of the issue. The evolving technologies, CSI phenomenon and post-conviction applications for use of advance technologies will always be there. The judges have to keep in step with the evolving technologies of age-Republicans or Democrats alike- to dispense justice that is also īseenī. Logically speaking, Obama administration is going to step back and justices may actually revisit the case and change their decision in due course of time. Iīll keep my fingers crossed.
Finally, for now I will put my money behind the gossip that following failure of Obamaīs financial reforms as īrepackaged without any changeī the future of both bronze Bull sculpture outside NY Stock exchange and job of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is most likely to make news in coming weeks.
The New York Times editorial on the subject (Unparalleled and Denied, dated June 19, 2009) has rightly pointed out that, "the chief justice and his concurring colleagues have their priorities all wrong." The four dissenting judges have aptly identified that, "Alaska was wrong to block testing when DNA technology is available that may prove someone is unjustly being kept behind bars." Justice Stevensīs opinion in his dissent is spot-on. "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
The New York Times editorial has rightly questioned Obama administrationīs siding with Alaska on the issue. I am of the opinion that US Supreme Court should without any further delay revisit and review its own judgment for following reasons. Justice should not be denied due to gaps in laws failing to evolve with growing technologies. The law has to catch up with the technology not otherwise. The majority of justices may have served the justice but it is not "seen" as served by the people on the street under the "CSI Phenomenon". The US Supreme Court cannot challenge the science with law alone. It needs to recognize the power of technology in fighting crime and serving justice. The judges need to revisit the decision to incorporate role of advance technology to dispense transparent judgments based on advance technology evidence.
Today, itīs DNA. Tomorrow, most likely it is going to be acoustics (recording conversations at the time of crime). If Republican judges have shamelessly tolerated Bushīs "pre-crime" warrantless wiretapping (eves dropping) on-lines of "Minority Report" in violation of nationīs Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the constitution for vested stakes. If Bronze Bull Statue outside NY Stock Exchange can occupy the public place illegally since 1983, why canīt admission of DNA be allowed to help hapless prisoners prove their innocence. However belated it may be! After all laws are made for people not otherwise. Shouldnīt the justices act in the interest of Main street, also?
The courtīs decision is not only going to have adverse consequences for imprisoned individuals within US but the prisoners in the rest of the world who are banking on the modern technology to prove their innocence. White House, legal experts and Human Rights organizations need to take steps to ensure that technology is used to help the innocent and help courts pass judgments that can withhold test of modern technology at any given time. Judgments like law cannot stay frozen in time. It must serve human beings at all times in all ages and with all available technologies etc. The case in point is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Today, majority of the states in the world in step with the US Supreme Court ruling recognize defendantīs fundamental right to legal counsel and accordingly provide a lawyer to those who cannot afford one.
"The US Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ruling mandated state and local courts had to provide lawyer only for offenses for which capital punishment was possible. Clarence Earl Gideon was tried for burglary in Florida in 1961 and asked the court to provide a lawyer because he could not afford one. The court refused; Gideon conducted his own defense and was convicted. He then sent a petition to the Supreme Court. Louie L. Wainwright, head of the Florida prison system, was named defendant in the case."
"In Gideon v. Wainwright the Court overruled an earlier decision that the right to legal counsel was not guaranteed in state criminal cases. The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, for the first time stated that anyone accused of a crime had a fundamental right to legal counsel. Another trial was held. Gideon was defended by a court-appointed lawyer and was acquitted."
"The Supreme Court ruled that because the legal process is so complex, the state must provide a lawyer at its own expense to any defendant in a criminal trial. Although having a lawyer does not, of course, guarantee a fair trial, not having a lawyer makes it much more likely that the legal process will be unfair, because police and prosecutors will have far fewer incentives to follow investigative leads and constitutional procedures. Gideon and later cases that extended the right to counsel make it less likely that innocent people will be brought to trial on trumped-up charges and more likely that even the guilty will be dealt with fairly." (Ten Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, Encarta 2008)
The US Supreme Court ruling in favor of the (belated) use of (advance) DNA technology could have set an historic precedent on lines of Gideon v. Wainwright. The judges by revisiting the case can still make history. We must remember that it is not the end of the issue. The evolving technologies, CSI phenomenon and post-conviction applications for use of advance technologies will always be there. The judges have to keep in step with the evolving technologies of age-Republicans or Democrats alike- to dispense justice that is also īseenī. Logically speaking, Obama administration is going to step back and justices may actually revisit the case and change their decision in due course of time. Iīll keep my fingers crossed.
Finally, for now I will put my money behind the gossip that following failure of Obamaīs financial reforms as īrepackaged without any changeī the future of both bronze Bull sculpture outside NY Stock exchange and job of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is most likely to make news in coming weeks.
Print
Email
