Discuss how DNA testing, in some cases, has the capability to exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Although many eyewitnesses provide accurate reports, some make mistakes. The recollections of eyewitnesses can lead the police down blind alleys or cause them to arrest the wrong suspect. The investigative actions of the police sometimes compound those problems. In fact, approximately one in five eyewitnesses who feel they are capable of recognizing a perpetrator selects an innocent person during an identification procedure. The result is wrongful convictions by judges and juries, an all-too-familiar scenario by now.It is now apparent that eyewitness errors create real problems for the justice system. DNA procedures developed in the 1980s made it possible to take a new look at evidence left at a crime scene. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of crimes-most notably sexual assaults-have DNA-rich evidence, although even when DNA is present, it is often not tested or is destroyed. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that states are not required to make DNA evidence available to convicted offenders. As a result, many wrongly convicted people have no way to prove their innocence.But when DNA testing is conducted, it sometimes reveals that the person convicted of a crime and incarcerated was not the actual perpetrator. Further analysis of the evidence in these cases often shows that eyewitness errors are to blame. They are a leading cause of wrongful convictions, particularly in sexual assaults and robberies. According to the Innocence Project, the largest and most prominent organization devoted to proving wrongful convictions, mistaken identifications account for 72% of wrongful convictions revealed by DNA tests; more than false confessions, problems with snitches, and defective or fraudulent science combined.