Limit DNA tests – Scranton Times-Tribune

Article Tools

Innocence Project lawyer Vanessa Potkin hugs Alfred Swinton, a man once suspected of being a serial killer, after a Superior Court judge Thursday in Hartford, Connecticut, approved a new trial in the 1991 murder of Carla Terry after DNA testing proved that he could not have made a bite mark that was a key piece of evidence. A pending Pennsylvania bill to expand DNA testing should exclude mandatory use of the procedure when defendants claim it would exonerate them. (Mark Mirko/Hartford Courant via Associated Press)

DNA testing is among the most powerful tools available to law enforcement, so it makes sense that many state legislators want to expand its use.

A pending bill to that effect is overly broad, however, and should be scaled back a bit to focus it on the most likely suspects. Doing so also would solve the other major problem with the legislation paying for it.

Sponsors deserve credit for limiting the bill to mandatory DNA testing only of those convicted of crimes. Some advocates originally wanted to test anyone merely charged with certain classes of crimes, which runs counter to the constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence.

DNA testing occurs now for people convicted of violent crimes and other major felonies. The results are cross-checked against DNA databases for unsolved crimes.

The bill would expand the process to anyone convicted of a first-degree misdemeanor or 15 specific misdemeanors. Misdemeanors often are serious crimes; Pennsylvania classifies as high-level misdemeanors some crimes that other states classify as felonies.

But as written, the bill would mandate testing for up to 40,000 people a year, at a cost of about $3 million for which the bill makes no account.

Lawmakers should scale back the mandatory testing to cover the most serious crimes, thus focusing on the most likely sources of breaks in other cases while controlling costs.

To make the use of DNA testing truly as effective as possible, lawmakers should mandate its use when defendants claim it would exonerate them. In those cases, after all, the risk is assumed by the defendant.

See more here:
Limit DNA tests - Scranton Times-Tribune