Editorial 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html?ref=opinion

The article is about how DNA has been used as evidence for many death row inmates after they have already been convicted. The article mentions how the DNA was not tested during the actual trial and is now being tested as a way to delay or avoid execution of these inmates.

I have heard about DNA testing post conviction before but after reading this article I learned that sometimes attorneys or courts will not test all DNA in order to either protect the convicted they represent or to provide a guilty verdict for who they are convicting. In the example case the article mentioned, his attorney only requested DNA testing of some material because of the fear of further proving his guilt.

This idea of only presenting some of evidence to convict someone to death row seems risky. Alot of times we hear stories about how the wrong person was put to death because of not testing all the evidence. The author of the article is against death row but does say that if we are going to have it, then we should at least make sure we have proper evidence. I think that the same can be said about not just death row but for anyone in prison. I support the death penalty, but I do think that when deciding someone's innocence or guilt in a trial and in a criminal investigation all the evidence should be tested. It should not be permitted to only run tests on some of the evidence. If everything was being examined and tested prior to conviction then there would be less questions raised about those on death row. We would see guilty men on death row and not innocent men who were put there based on partial evidence. This article says the issue is partial DNA testing being used post conviction. I think another issue why are courts not asking for full DNA tests to start with?