Should every prisoner have the right to have their DNA tested.......

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes they should, although I would oppose public funds for it.  There are a lot of innocene project type groups out there that can raise the funding.

[Scam of God]

Yes they should, although I would oppose public funds for it.  

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. As long as the Federal government is paying for their imprisonment, why shouldn't the Federal government be obliged to test for their innocence?

[Lunar]

It can't cost that much relative to the cost of saving innocent people's lives, who cares where the $ comes from?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes they should, although I would oppose public funds for it.  There are a lot of innocene project type groups out there that can raise the funding.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It can't cost that much relative to the cost of saving innocent people's lives, who cares where the $ comes from?

Taxpayers care.  There isn't political support for it.......there would barely be enough support for legislation to allow them to have the right to have testing.

[Scam of God]

It can't cost that much relative to the cost of saving innocent people's lives, who cares where the $ comes from?

Taxpayers care. 

I also care about Reagan's military deficit, and Bush's Faith-Based Frauds. Where is your hue and cry over those? Or are they sacrosanct because they were the pet projects of your political allies?

[Lunar]

Gramps: Fine, if you're just arguing what's political feasible, then do what's politically feasible.  :-/

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It can't cost that much relative to the cost of saving innocent people's lives, who cares where the $ comes from?

Taxpayers care. 

I also care about Reagan's military deficit, and Bush's Faith-Based Frauds. Where is your hue and cry over those? Or are they sacrosanct because they were the pet projects of your political allies?

I was answering Lunar's question about political realities, Einzige.  Your earlier point when you weren't bashing me is well taken.......we're paying to incarcerate them.......spending a few dollars to have them tested might reduce the cost to government, so I'm going to change my personal opinion, not my political one.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gramps: Fine, if you're just arguing what's political feasible, then do what's politically feasible.  :-/

Yeah, that's all.  Einzige made a good point that this might end up saving government a sh**tload of money.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes - government-funded

[Sbane]

Of course they should have their DNA tested and it OBVIOUSLY should be funded by the government. If we are wrongly imprisoning someone we already owe them more than we can give them, so we can't even spend money on one little DNA test?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes - I voted not government funded, but I guess as I think about it more, I wouldn't be opposed to federal money - although I feel that's something that should've been paid for during the trial (perhaps have the convicting jurisdiction pay for it?).

Although, for some crimes it wouldn't be necessary.

[Frodo]

I don't see why not. 

[dead0man]

Does anybody have any idea what percent of inmates could be found innocent using DNA?  I'm guessing it's well below 50%.  It's not like the cops needed DNA to put a coke mule away.  I say test all of 'em that can be (and want to be tested) and release all that are innocent.  Then check their DNA against any applicable unsolved cases where DNA would be useful.

[Sbane]

Does anybody have any idea what percent of inmates could be found innocent using DNA?  I'm guessing it's well below 50%.  It's not like the cops needed DNA to put a coke mule away.  I say test all of 'em that can be (and want to be tested) and release all that are innocent.  Then check their DNA against any applicable unsolved cases where DNA would be useful.

I guess I should have been clearer. DNA testing should only be done in cases where DNA evidence would actually prove something. So maybe it should be looked at from a case to case basis and if DNA evidence could possibly overturn the verdict, it should be done free of cost to the prisoner.

[dead0man]

Does anybody have any idea what percent of inmates could be found innocent using DNA?  I'm guessing it's well below 50%.  It's not like the cops needed DNA to put a coke mule away.  I say test all of 'em that can be (and want to be tested) and release all that are innocent.  Then check their DNA against any applicable unsolved cases where DNA would be useful.

I guess I should have been clearer. DNA testing should only be done in cases where DNA evidence would actually prove something. So maybe it should be looked at from a case to case basis and if DNA evidence could possibly overturn the verdict, it should be done free of cost to the prisoner.

agreed

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Does anybody have any idea what percent of inmates could be found innocent using DNA?  I'm guessing it's well below 50%.  It's not like the cops needed DNA to put a coke mule away.  I say test all of 'em that can be (and want to be tested) and release all that are innocent.  Then check their DNA against any applicable unsolved cases where DNA would be useful.

That's a startling number still, dead0.

[dead0man]

Certainly.  And if .0001% of those are innocent and can be found innocent with DNA, then it will be well worth the how ever many millions it will cost the state.

..and yes, I'm still a libertarian.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Surely the cost of these DNA tests of prisoners is vastly smaller than the cost of keeping innocent people in prison for god knows how long a period of time.

[dead0man]

Surely the cost of these DNA tests of prisoners is vastly smaller than the cost of keeping innocent people in prison for god knows how long a period of time.

It would have to be.

Secondary question:Should the DNA data of the prisoners that "opt in" to this potential innocence program* be checked against the unsolved crime registry?

I say it should be.  While I think protecting the innocent is more important than punishing the guilty, I think punishing the guilty is something we don't do hard enough when we know there is guilt.  There is no reason at all that repeat violent offenders should be allowed to walk around while a dude slinging $40 baggies of pot at a Community College rots his best years away sharing a bunk with Herbert the Pervert.



*I'm assuming we'd give the prisoners a chance to "opt out" of this to protect their civil rights, although a good argument could sway me here I think

[Lunar]

I agree with that secondary question dead.  While it would have a "chilling effect" -- I wouldn't see that as being especially problematic unless the prisoners
1- Are innocent of the crime they are accused of but are worried their DNA is linked to a worse crime
1b - Are worried that they'll be convicted of a lesser crime linked do their DNA while losing the battle to overturn their original conviction.

Interesting question though, it seems that the benefits of checking their DNA against the crime database outweighs the potential chilling effect.

[Sbane]

Surely the cost of these DNA tests of prisoners is vastly smaller than the cost of keeping innocent people in prison for god knows how long a period of time.

It would have to be.

Secondary question:Should the DNA data of the prisoners that "opt in" to this potential innocence program* be checked against the unsolved crime registry?

I say it should be.  While I think protecting the innocent is more important than punishing the guilty, I think punishing the guilty is something we don't do hard enough when we know there is guilt.  There is no reason at all that repeat violent offenders should be allowed to walk around while a dude slinging $40 baggies of pot at a Community College rots his best years away sharing a bunk with Herbert the Pervert.



*I'm assuming we'd give the prisoners a chance to "opt out" of this to protect their civil rights, although a good argument could sway me here I think

I agree with this.

[Stampever]

Yes (Option 1).  Also, the state has the right to save that data and check it against DNA tests done on future/past crimes as well.

[Scam of God]

What imbecile voted no?

[Torie]

Does anybody have any idea what percent of inmates could be found innocent using DNA?  I'm guessing it's well below 50%.  It's not like the cops needed DNA to put a coke mule away.  I say test all of 'em that can be (and want to be tested) and release all that are innocent.  Then check their DNA against any applicable unsolved cases where DNA would be useful.

I guess I should have been clearer. DNA testing should only be done in cases where DNA evidence would actually prove something. So maybe it should be looked at from a case to case basis and if DNA evidence could possibly overturn the verdict, it should be done free of cost to the prisoner.

I think few would disagree that I think you have come up with the "right" answer here sbane. Well done!