Introduction
The Postconviction DNA Testing Assistance program is a grant initiative that provides States with funding to cover the cost of postconviction DNA testing. The program authorizes funds in cases involving violent felonies as defined by State laws (National Institute of Justice, 2018). Postconviction DNA testing has garnered considerable interest since the advent of forensic DNA analysis. The program primarily facilitates the review of violent felonies where actual innocence may be proven.
According to the National Institute of Justice (2018), many convicted criminals have been exonerated through DNA analysis of untested crime scene evidence. The program has incorporated technology into the justice system, facilitating access to costly technologies that help people who have been wrongfully convicted find justice.
It is administered by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) across all States in the U.S. Main institutions that benefit from the fund include State Governments, public institutions of higher education, and local governments. Nevertheless, states must apply for the grant since it is not mandatory. The respective departments use the funds to pay for case reviews, gather evidence, conduct DNA testing on evidence, and hire additional staff and specialists.
Since its creation, the project has funded the application of newer DNA analysis technology to test crime scene samples previously considered aged, degraded, limited, or otherwise compromised biological evidence. Therefore, the program applies to people of all age groups, provided the crime involved a violent felony and innocence might be demonstrated. The component of the corrections system involved in the project is the Judiciary. The Judiciary initiated the program to implement the transformation outlined in the Justice for All Act of 2004.
Reasons for the Selection
The application of technology to corroborate innocence has become fundamental in the judicial process today. Although exoneration is not the sole measure of the program’s success, several exonerations have resulted from NIJ’s funding. For example, Horace Roberts was convicted in 1999 for the murder of Terry Cheek (The National Registry of Exonerations, 2019; Garcia, 2018).
On October 15, 2018, the court declared that Roberts had been cleared of all charges, while Googie Harris Sr. and Leal had been charged with the murder (The National Registry of Exonerations, 2019; Garcia, 2018). Roberts was acquitted due to the same technological advances that enable the judicial system to revisit old cases that have been dormant, bringing justice to the innocent. Research on DNA testing to corroborate witness statements shows that the method is accurate and reliable for verifying claims of innocence (Saber et al., 2021). Had it not been for DNA, Roberts could still be associated with the crime and serving a sentence.
DNA testing has confirmed the claims of many people seeking a justice review. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize the benefits of the Postconviction DNA Testing Assistance Program and how it helps convicts seek justice. It is important because it will offer a foundational change to the justice system and the law, which is supposed to be infallible. Furthermore, the program is of interest because it is essential for ongoing research on the application of technology in the criminal justice system.
The program provides a reprieve for convicted individuals who can demonstrate innocence through DNA testing. Since DNA testing is expensive, the program reduces the burden on States to review cases and locate and analyze biological evidence. The program is of interest due to the increasing instances in which DNA testing has resulted in significant exonerations, as well as the application of technology in evidence collection and analysis.
Literature Review
The postconviction 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 postconviction cases of violent felonies, such as forcible rape and homicide. Although adult male inmates have been the dominant beneficiary of the Postconviction 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 Postconviction DNA Test program is unique in that it acknowledges the major shortcomings in the criminal justice system while providing a means to enhance 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 differs because it can last for decades and provide greater accuracy long after a case is resolved, helping to prove innocence or guilt (Saber et al., 2021). The program has enabled criminal justice officials to resolve cases that had been open for several decades without a suspect.
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 Postconviction program is unique because it has provided additional funding to enable the justice system across states to proactively identify, locate, and assist potentially innocent inmates in seeking justice at an affordable cost. 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 postconviction program include the State Governments, National Institute of Justice, and national resource centers. While the National Institute of Justice is the primary grantor for the program, the postconviction relief process involves prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, victim assistance advocates, and laboratory personnel, all of whom 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 providing access to technology that could prove innocence for inmates.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice, state government projects, and advocates for justice, such as the Virginia Postconviction 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 postconviction Program and the general public have supported the reform due to its potential benefits in finding justice for the victims and defendants.
Challenges and Solutions
The lack of implementation of postconviction DNA testing statutes in some states has limited the availability of the program to some inmates. States without the provision may prohibit postconviction 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 postconviction 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. It has significantly expanded opportunities for correcting irreversible errors, such as willful or malicious destruction of the evidence. The lack of a clear procedure means postconviction 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 initially appears (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 postconviction DNA testing becomes the standard. Therefore, the justice system will have sufficient time to review previous cases before DNA technology is used for evidence corroboration.
Finally, the 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 the level of advancement of its current storage system, which may compromise the sustainability of the Postconviction DNA testing program. Although storage remains a challenge, DNA databases have provided an effective means of storing evidence in digital formats for future reference and investigation.
Data as a Guiding 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 postconviction 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 helps make the justice system more efficient and error-free, while also streamlining the trial process through the use of reliable technology.
Program Effectiveness
The most successful outcome of the postconviction DNA test program was the exoneration of wrongly convicted inmates. Additionally, the program has increased public interest in the fair application of justice and enhanced the credibility of the justice system. 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 advancements in DNA technology and increased funding for the postconviction 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 covers the time invested by judges, petitioners, and experts, DNA testing has become more accessible for convicts (National Institute of Justice, 2018). Financing research and improvement of postconviction DNA tests has helped model competitive experts who produce consistent and reliable analyses that can be relied upon to prosecute cases or exonerate innocent people.
Importance of the Program and Legislation
The Innocence Project is one of the national organizations in the U.S. that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted using DNA evidence. Interest in revealing wrongful convictions has intensified due to the successful cases that have proven innocence after DNA testing (Machado & Silva, 2019). For instance, over 10 people have been exonerated in Pennsylvania with DNA evidence, where real perpetrators went on to commit additional crimes (National Institute of Justice, 2019). Therefore, the public safety implications of incarcerating the innocent have impacted society more.
Some states have passed legislation allowing inmates to appeal their cases if DNA evidence could prove innocence. For instance, Pennsylvania is one of the earliest states to pass Postconviction DNA testing laws to improve access for the wrongfully convicted. However, it has been a long time since that law was updated, but legislation has been introduced to bring it in line with other states. New legislation in Pennsylvania, for example, removed the bar on people who pleaded guilty to accessing DNA testing (DNA Evidence Test and Testing Act, 2018).
Innocent people have pleaded guilty, yet some of the exonerations were through guilty pleas. Additionally, the law removed barriers for people who are no longer incarcerated, on parole, or on probation, enabling them to access justice. The legislation has clarified that the incarcerated, people on parole or probation, and those who have served terms should be allowed to access justice if new DNA testing techniques arise.
It is essential to review Postconviction DNA testing legislation so that technology and the court system are in sync. Currently, the court system is far behind current technology. As a matter of public safety, it is essential to have the right people incarcerated for the right crimes. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to guarantee this unless the justice system utilizes the most up-to-date available technology (Machado & Silva, 2019).
It is crucial to allow individuals who have pleaded guilty for various reasons to access DNA testing and prove their innocence. More importantly, from a public safety perspective, it will also enable the justice system to match DNA profiles with the FBI’s DNA database (Erbaş, 2022). That would be critical in identifying individuals who have not been charged with a crime but should have been.
It is vital to identify all the physical evidence in a case. In many criminal cases, evidence is collected. Still, the DNA is never tested or inspected by the defense to see if there is actual DNA that could exonerate the defendant. Additionally, the current postconviction laws should be revamped to allow more people access to DNA testing. For instance, the prequalification for DNA testing in Pennsylvania required the petitioner to be either incarcerated or under supervision (DNA Evidence Test and Testing Act, 2018).
In many other sex crimes, one could be under the reporting requirements and not beyond supervision. So, the individuals were ineligible to file for critical DNA testing to find justice for them. There are many essential areas for reform in the justice systems of various states to make them fairer for defendants and citizens, ensuring that people are incarcerated for the right crimes.
Despite the best efforts by the criminal justice system, Innocence Projects, and other collaborative entities in facilitating the Postconviction DNA testing program, a few challenges still exist. For example, evidence retention is one of the controversial issues that has plagued the postconviction Program (Munir et al., 2020). Who is paying for the retention, what evidence to keep, and how long it should be kept have remained elusive in evidence preservation. Therefore, evidence collection, storage, preservation, and destruction are important aspects of the program’s success. Additionally, preserving quality evidence in the first instance is essential because collecting bad evidence is just as bad as destroying it.
Conclusion
The Postconviction DNA Testing Assistance program is an initiative by the National Institute for Justice to help states fund DNA testing. States apply and receive the funding to offset the cost associated with postconviction DNA testing of forcible rape, murder, and non-negligent manslaughter in which actual innocence may be demonstrated.
The funds can be used to review such postconviction cases and to locate and analyze biological evidence associated with those cases. Review of cases and prequalification for DNA testing is overseen by appropriate personnel, including prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement personnel, and medical examiners. People who have been acquitted of crimes funded by the program have demonstrated that DNA technology is effective in proving innocence for the wrongfully convicted.
Improvements to the justice system, including the review of laws that prevented convicted individuals from requesting DNA testing, have significantly enhanced the success of the postconviction DNA testing process. Major groups, like the National Institute of Justice, State Governments, and national resource centers, have worked hard to expand the reach of this program.
Various professionals, including prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, victim advocates, and lab staff, also play vital roles in reviewing cases and conducting DNA analysis. While challenges, like the high costs of storage, preservation, and expert compensation, still exist, program funding has greatly offset these expenses, enabling many people to pursue justice. The large number of prisoners who have successfully used this program to prove their innocence clearly demonstrates its overall success.
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.
Erbaş, R. (2022). DNA databases for the criminal justice system: A pathway towards utopian or dystopian future?The Age of Human Rights Journal, 1(18), 331–343. Web.
Garcia, S. (2018). DNA evidence exonerates a man of murder after 20 years in prison. The New York Times. Web.
Machado, H., & Silva, S. (2019). What influences public views on forensic DNA testing in the criminal field? A scoping review of quantitative evidence. Human Genomics, 13(1), 1–13. Web.
Munir, R., Abbas, R. Z., & Arshed, N. (2020). DNA profiling and databasing: An analysis of issues and challenges in the criminal justice system of Pakistan. Medicine, Science and the Law, 61(1), 27–33. Web.
National Institute of Justice. (2019). Exonerations resulting from NIJ postconviction DNA testing funding. National Institute of Justice. 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.
The National Registry of Exonerations. (2019). Horace Roberts – National Registry of Exonerations. Web.
Virginia State Crime Commission. (2019). Virginia post-conviction DNA testing program and notification project (pp. 1–40). Web.
DNA Evidence Test and Testing Act, 2018 Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2018-147 (S.B. 91) (2018). Web.