Discussion:
1. The reading about the Innocence Project was fascinating. There were a few parts that I found particularly interesting but the fact that the misapplication of forensic science leads to 46% of all DNA exoneration cases is unbelievable [1]. The reason this was the most interesting (or surprising) part of the reading to me is because I always thought scientific evidence was much more conclusive. The term "scientific" generally leads to a concise finding that is supported by evidence-based testing. However, as discussed in this reading, many methods of obtaining scientific evidence are unproven or untested to an appropriate degree [1]. Forms of scientific testing have been around since the 1980's and obviously, improvements have been made [2]. However, more testing is necessary for some types of evidence. For example, the New York Times published an article in 2014 that refers to the case of Kirk Odem, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison back in 1981 for a sexual assault [2]. As time progressed and more testing became available, he was eventually found not guilty [2]. Unfortunately, he had already served his 20-year sentence [2]. This is simply unacceptable and makes me wonder how many people like Mr. Odem are wrongfully incarcerated at this very moment. With that being said, DNA testing specifically has led to many exonerations [3]. For this reason, I believe DNA evidence is being properly used. DNA testing is being utilized in cases of mistaken eyewitness identification and leading to cases of exoneration [3].
2. The Justice for All Act of 2004 provides inmates who claim to be innocent with a chance to petition for DNA testing in their case [4]. I believe this legislation is beneficial to both inmates and victims of crimes. While it may be easy for the victim of a crime to see an individual behind bars, they should be more anxious than anyone to ensure that the right individual is behind bars. This act helps to exonerate inmates who are wrongfully convicted and may lead to a case being re-examined and the correct individual being charged. Aside from getting the wrong person released from prison, this could also lead to the right person being charged with the crime and doing their time behind bars. Another reason this legislation is beneficial is because it does not imply that anyone petitioning for the DNA testing will actually be granted the opportunity [4]. I cannot imagine an instance where the wrong person would be released from prison, because release will only happen if the subsequent DNA testing is conclusive. The act also provides, among other things, the right for victims of crimes to be heard at any of the public hearings involving release, plea, or sentencing of the party charged with the crime [4]. This is also a beneficial part of the legislation because it allows victims to remain included in the process of the suspect(s) being punished for their crime [4]. Being present and having a voice may also play a part in helping a victim find closure for whatever crime they were a victim of.
Works Cited:
1. The Innocence Project. (n.d.). Misapplication of Forensic Science.
2. Haberman, C. (2014, May 18). DNA Analysis Exposes Flaws in an Inexact Forensic Science - The New York Times.
3. Joel Samaha, Criminal Procedure, (8th ed. 2012).
4. OVC Fact Sheet. (n.d.). The Justice for All Act (April 2006).