NCJ Number
219496
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 97 Issue: 2 Dated: Winter 2007 Pages: 665-698
Date Published
2007
Length
34 pages
Annotation
This article examines the burden to the criminal justice system caused by guilty inmates requesting guilt-confirming DNA testing and recommends a possible solution involving loss of good time credit.
Abstract
The practice of post-conviction DNA testing has resulted in a number of wrongfully imprisoned inmates going free. On the other hand, most post-conviction DNA testing yields either inconclusive results or actually proves the inmates guilt. The practice of DNA testing upon inmate request is a lengthy and costly process that burdens already over-burdened forensic laboratories. Yet only one State, Missouri, places sanctions on inmate petitioners who seek guilt-confirming post-conviction DNA testing. The author critically reviews three possible solutions that could be enacted to ease the unrecognized and unnecessary burden on the justice system: (1) the development of more rigorous screening for applications for post-conviction DNA testing; (2) shifting the burden of payment for the costs of testing to the petitioner rather than the State; and (3) levy specific penalties against petitioners who seek testing only to have the results confirm their guilt, as in the Missouri model. Problems with the first two solutions, namely that the application process in most States is already quite stringent and, in the second option, indigent inmates would be excluded, lead the author to recommend the third solution as the most sound. The author recommends Missouri’s model of sanctioning guilty petitioners and further recommends that the sanction should be the deduction of good time credits. Such a sanctioning scheme, the author argues, would not harm those who are innocent and have been wrongfully convicted. In making the argument, the author reviews post-conviction DNA testing and the Innocence Project, which has brought a great deal of media attention to the phenomenon of wrongfully convicted prisoners. Proposed statutory standards of evaluating post-conviction DNA testing petitions is examined followed by a consideration of the second possible solution of inmate payment for testing, which is criticized for its obviously class exclusions and constitutionality. Footnotes