A chance to prove innocence
- |
ANTHONY POWELL served 12 years in prison for the rape and kidnapping of a teenage girl while she waited for a bus. Throughout his trial and incarceration, Powell maintained his innocence. But it wasn't until March, 2004, that Powell was exonerated based on DNA testing of semen found on the victim's body. Convicted in Massachusetts, Powell could consider himself lucky. Massachusetts remains one of only four states without a law allowing convicts to have DNA tests performed on evidence that may prove their innocence.
Post-conviction DNA tests have exonerated over 230 innocent people across the country. At release, these people already had served an average of 12 years behind bars. As in the case of Powell, who was identified by the victim as her rapist, these exonerations reveal the frequency of errors in eyewitness identification and other evidence that juries rely on for convictions.
Although many convicts would not pass up an opportunity to question their incarceration, any concern that DNA access would overwhelm the state's judicial system is exaggerated. Even in states with DNA access laws, the legitimacy of each request, and whether DNA testing of evidence has the ability to exonerate a convict, is considered on a case-by-case basis. Some states, including Michigan and Louisiana, have implemented sunset provisions on DNA access in order to limit review. These states' judicial systems are actually under more stress because convicts who face a deadline are more likely to petition for access before they and their attorneys can assess whether the request can legally be granted.
Massachusetts does conduct a lot of review in practice. In many cases, access to DNA is granted by district attorneys, and the State Police Crime Lab maintains all DNA evidence indefinitely. Yet none of this is required by law, preventing reviewable standards and limiting the ability of convicts to contest a DA's decision.
Standards to protect the innocent from conviction must be codified in state law. In addition to preserving DNA evidence for the duration of incarceration, the law must entitle DNA tests to those for whom critical DNA evidence was not previously tested. It also must grant retesting if current DNA technology could find more definitive results or resolve inconclusive results.
Using DNA tests to double-check convictions is not just about releasing the innocent. Opening old cases may hurt some victims who desire a sense of closure, but in dozens of cases DNA testing has not only exonerated the innocent but also identified the true perpetrator.
DNA testing would assure the safety of Massachusetts residents in two ways: by putting more real criminals behind bars, and by protecting the innocent from wrongful imprisonment by the state.
