Better Ten Innocent People Go to Jail. . . .

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing ("Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests").  While the Court's right-leaning majority makes the decision unsurprising, we are still somewhat bewildered by the reasoning.

First, Chief Justice Roberts based his decision on the premise that there was no need for a "constitutionalization" of this right because of the fact that almost all states (46 to be exact) already allow inmates some level of access to DNA evidence: "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."

In other words, if we're understanding correctly, just because--PRECISELY because--almost everybody does it, there's no need to say that everybody SHOULD do it.  We understand the idea of federalism and "state's rights," but doesn't the fact that most states do something reasonable call into question the reasonableness of the holdouts.

An even more debatable rationale was offered by Justice Samuel Alito who, in a concurring opinion, mentioned his concern that, if a constitutional right to DNA testing were recognized, states would incur significant costs.  True, of course, but we don't think financial concerns should be the basis for Supreme Court jurisprudence.  After all, a criminal justice system costs money.  States and municipalities could balance budgets and accumulate massive surpluses simply by declaring virtually everything legal, closing prisons, and disbanding police forces.  They don't do that, however, presumably because citizens have decided that a functioning legal system is worth a sizable expenditure.

Furthermore, the cost of DNA testing will likely diminish as the technology evolves.

Further-furthermore, the question before the Court was not whether the government should PAY for DNA testing, but simply whether such testing should be considered a constitutional right.  (Sure, if a right were established, it would almost inevitably lead to a case wherein a defendant would argue that the state was obliged to provide such services for the indigent, but that was not the issue under discussion here.)

And further-further-furthermore, the defendant in this case, William G. Osborne (who it seems, from information mentioned in the article, may well be guilty), was offering to pay for the testing himself.

Our legal system is grounded on a belief that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted.  This decision flies in the face of that philosophy.

(Image from www.csb.yale.edu)