Summary
The post-conviction DNA Testing Assistance program helps eligible inmates pursue DNA testing to support their claim of innocence. Grant funds from the program help defray the cost associated with DNA testing by providing means for locating and testing biological evidence in the reviewed cases. This initiative is funded by the National Institute of Justice per the Justice for All Act of 2004 (National Institute of Justice, 2018). Mainly, the grant pays for reviews of eligible post-conviction cases of violent felonies, such as forcible rape and homicide. Although adult male inmates have been the dominant beneficiary of the Post-conviction DNA Testing Assistance program, it is intended to help inmates of all genders and ages.
All states in the United States are eligible to apply for grants, including learning and legal institutions that facilitate inmate justice. Since the program’s inception, lawyers, paralegals, and investigators have worked to identify inmates from adult prisons nationwide who appear most likely to be exonerated by DNA testing (National Institute of Justice, 2018). The lawyers, paralegals, and investigators collaborate with the Department of Corrections in various states to screen cases and approve those eligible for review.
What Makes the Program Special
The Post-conviction DNA Test program is unique since it recognizes the major shortcomings in the criminal justice system while providing a way to improve its reliability and efficiency. Courts have historically set deadlines for filing petition relief because new evidence tends to lose its validity over time (Norris et al., 2020). However, DNA evidence is different because it can last decades and provide greater accuracy long after a case is determined to prove innocence or guilt(Saber et al., 2021). The program has allowed criminal justice officials to solve cases that have lasted for several decades without suspects.
DNA testing is a new technology that is relatively expensive and beyond the financial capabilities of inmates. According to the National Institute of Justice (2018), the Post-conviction program is special because it has provided additional funding to enable the justice system across states proactively identify, locate, and assist possible innocent inmates to seek justice inexpensively. The initiative has produced several exonerations since its inception, in which the actual suspects were brought to justice.
Key Stakeholders
The key stakeholders in the post-conviction program include the National Institute of Justice, State Governments, and national resource centers. While the National Institute of Justice is the primary granter for the program, the post-conviction relief process involves prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, victim assistance advocates, and laboratory personnel, who play a significant role in the case review. The program has received positive reviews and support from the justice system, the general public, state governments, and paralegal institutions (Virginia State Crime Commission, 2019).
Supporters of the initiative understand its moral and ethical significance in accessing technology that could prove innocence for inmates. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice, state government projects, and advocates for justice like the Virginia Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program and Notification Project have supported the program to offer closure to victims’ families and add certainty to the judicial process (Virginia State Crime Commission, 2019). Stakeholders of the post-conviction program and the general public have supported the reform due to its potential benefits in finding justice for the victims and defendants.
Challenges Faced by the Program and How It Overcame Them
The lack of implementation of Post-conviction DNA testing statutes in some states has limited the availability of the program to some inmates. States without the provision may prohibit post-conviction DNA testing by allowing the destruction of evidence or by unreasonably imposing restrictions on the circumstances under which a defendant may request testing (Norris et al., 2020). Due to these administrative and legal restrictions that impede post-conviction testing, innocent persons may remain behind bars, compromising the justice system’s legitimacy. These laws that restrict the accessibility of powerful evidence from DNA testing compromise the fairness and accuracy of the judicial system. Restructuring of the laws allows for the preservation of DNA evidence and has significantly expanded opportunities for correcting irreversible errors, such as willful or malicious destruction of the evidence.
The lack of a clear procedure means post-conviction testing takes time and resources. Nevertheless, strong testing statutes have provided courts and petitioners with guidelines to simplify and streamline the process (Norris et al., 2020). Therefore, the cost of compensating judges, clerks, and other experts for their time has become more manageable than it might first appear (Duncan, 2019). Another challenge facing the program is the influx of petitions, which has caused a backlog in the courts. Fewer defendants will file requests for relief in the future as post-conviction DNA testing becomes the standard. Therefore, the justice system will have sufficient time to commit to reviewing previous cases before the DNA technology in evidence corroboration. Finally, storage of the evidence throughout the incarceration period of a defendant and related expenditures can be overwhelming for some states. The storage cost can vary based on the size of a state and how advanced its current storage system is, which may compromise the sustainability of the Post-conviction DNA testing program. Although storage remains a problem, DNA databases have provided an intuitive way to keep evidence in digital formats for future reference.
The Use of Data as Guide Principle
The program evaluation, review of cases based on DNA test results, and other forms of research are all necessary to measure what is working. The post-conviction DNA test entails obtaining qualitative data from offenders to justify their case review and quantitative data from DNA test results. It is intended to prove the convict’s innocence rather than measure recidivism, motivations for change, or cognitive behavior (Norris et al., 2020). The data obtained from revisited cases help make the justice system more efficient and freer of error besides streamlining the trial process using reliable technology.
Effectiveness of the Post-conviction DNA Test Assistance Program
The most successful outcome of the post-conviction DNA test program was the exoneration of wrongly convicted inmates. Additionally, the program has enhanced public interest in the fair application of justice and improved the justice system’s credibility. A growing number of Americans convicted of homicide and sexual assault have benefited from DNA analysis of evidence untested during the previous trial (National Institute of Justice, 2018). An increasing number of people found innocent after DNA analysis indicates the program has made the trial process error-free. Aged, deteriorated, scarce, and otherwise compromised biological evidence has been more successfully analyzed due to DNA technology and increased financing of the post-conviction program.
The funding of this program by the U.S. National Institute of Justice has significantly reduced the burden on states to finance the relief process. As a result, all inmates with eligible appeals for DNA testing can access the expensive process regardless of their financial capability. Since the fund pays for the time invested by judges, petitioners, and experts, DNA testing has become easy to access for convicts (National Institute of Justice, 2018). Financing research and improvement of post-conviction DNA tests have helped model competitive experts who produce consistent and reliable analyses that can be relied upon to prosecute cases or exonerate innocent people.
References
Duncan, C. (2019). Justifying justice: Six factors of wrongful convictions and their solutions. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 7(1). Web.
National Institute of Justice. (2018). Postconviction DNA testing. National Institute of Justice. Web.
Norris, R., Acker, J., Bonventre, C., & Redlich, A. (2020). Thirty years of innocence. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 1(1), 2–58. Web.
Saber, M., Nodeland, B., & Wall, R. (2021). Exonerating DNA evidence in overturned convictions: Analysis of data obtained from the national registry of exonerations. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 33(3), 1–8. Web.
Virginia State Crime Commission. (2019). Virginia post-conviction DNA testing program and notification project (pp. 1–40). Web.