Comments on: Supreme Court Denies Prisoner Right to DNA Evidence

By: suetiggers

suetiggers — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:47:37 +0000

This court is stacked with ultra reactionary members, so I guess that explains their unwillingness to give someone a chance to prove their innocence. It is frightening that they care so little for truth and fairness. What has happened to justice in the United States !

By: baduga

baduga — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:05:48 +0000

A democracy is a Liberal institution by definition as long as the people get to vote freely and fairly with all the votes counted.

By: Jess_newsy

Jess_newsy — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:34:35 +0000

I do think the Federal courts should allow at least a limited right to DNA evidence. Why imprison an innocent man if you don't have to? You would think they would want to say positively that their court made the right decision. I understand this may open up a line of prisoners asking for post-conviction DNA testing, but what's the harm in defending your innocence? My only question is why the test was not done initially?
http://www.newsy.com/videos/supreme_court_shoots_down_dna_appeal

By: cedieke

cedieke — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:11:21 +0000

your answer just proved that you didn't get it.

By: margiemcculloch

margiemcculloch — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:25:25 +0000

It is untinkable that any man or woman should be denied the right to ANY evidence that could clearly and definitavely prove them innocent. How can the proceedural integrety that the Justice sights be of more value than this citizen's life? What honorable reason could the prosecution have for spending so much time and money to whithold this option from Mr Osborne? What is in it for them?
One can't help but wonder, if this were the son of Govenor Palin (or any other powerful figure in Alaska) would the outcome have been the same? The five members of the Supreme Court that upheld the decision so tragic for Mr Osborne need to get out of their ivory towers and get with the times.

By: JAGUAR6CY

JAGUAR6CY — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:24:18 +0000

The people of Alaska should decide this question. That is all the Court is saying.

By: JAGUAR6CY

JAGUAR6CY — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:21:58 +0000

Is our democracy liberal?

By: CVal

CVal — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:50:14 +0000

It seems the Supreme Court has forgotten the ultimate resolution is JUSTICE. I do understand the Constitution mandates that anything not relegated to the Federal Government is automatically under the aegis of the STATES. However, absent an existent law in any State (In this case Alaska), then the cry for justice must be supported by the Federal procedure in handling DNA evidence in a Federal trial. The Supremes have ignored their responsibility to such a mandate. So, while the Supremes are ferried about D.C. in their limos and enjoying an evening at the Symphony, a possibly innocent man is locked away in a small cell trying to survive. Finally, let's ask the obvious question that brought this case to the attention of the Court. If the prosecution was so sure he was guilty, why did they refuse to allow the DNA evidence they had in their custody to be used to verify the man's guilt or innocence?

By: baduga

baduga — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:43:44 +0000

JAGUAR6CY, you just son't get it. Our Liberal Democracy was instituted by people to enshrine our rights. It is the reactionary conservative who cannot understand this.

By: ihomio

ihomio — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:39:34 +0000

I agree with the Supreme Court's final decision – this is a matter of legislation (“eluctant to enlist the Federal Judiciary in creating a new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA.”). States, for example, have different statute of limitations for crimes. Probably, each state's constitution should address prisoners' rights. Just imagine if the Supreme Court ruled otherwise? It would have set a precedent – all the prisoners would then have the right to “contest” why they were imprisoned and possibly put the burden on the states to produce proof of guilt that based on DNA evidence. Wh will shoulder the cost? How many times must can a prisoner claim innocence?