If DNA testing may exonerate someone accused of a crime, willing to be tested, and unable to pay ...

[Boojatta]

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. That would depend..

Define "may". The defendant's prints are on the murder weapon, he/she can be placed at the scene, but the DNA wasn't tested -- no, we shouldn't pay to test that.

Define "crime". If we're talking about someone locked up for 12 crimes, and one of the twelve "maybe" is cleared -- nope, I'm not inclined to pay for that either.

To me, the guilty party would need to show clear and compelling evience that the DNA would clear him/her.

As a taxpayer, I will tell you what I think the government should pay for...it should pay to DNA test every cold case rape kit for the past twenty five years (from most to least recent).

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. You did note that the OP said 'accused'.

There are no 'guilty part(ies)' in regargds to the accused - only accused parties.

If you are talking about post-trial DNA testing, in support of a convicted felon's appeal, that is a different question.

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. No, I am an idiot

I would agree that a presumed innocent defendant does have the right to
a) have the state perform DNA testing
or
b) pay for the test, and pursue for recovery costs from the state if they won't pay

I'm so used to this argument being over the imprisoned, that's how I read it -- sorry

[dragonlady]

2. Read some of the cases from the Innocence Project

Read them and weep. People who lost 20 years of their life to lying informants, bad forensic science, mistaken eyewitness identifications. More than 250 people have been given the rest of their lives back because of DNA. Now that this testing is available, no one else should be wrongly convicted.

http://www.innocenceproject.org

[sandnsea]

3. Should it be added to the DNA database?

I think that's the biggest problem with DNA testing. A lot of these guys don't want their DNA matched for other crimes.

I think it should be a case by case basis. We shouldn't pay for testing because a convict thinks there's an outside chance the DNA won't match.

[quaker bill]

5. If there is relevant DNA evidence at the crime scene

it should be tested along with the defendant prior to the trial. If the DNA points to someone else, the trial should not proceed. In most cases, if the DNA evidence points to another person, the charges should be dropped and the trial should never happen.

[Edweird]

7. If the justice system is, in fact, about justice and not merely convictions,

then DNA testing should be part of the prosecution/defense paid for by the state.