The technological advancement in DNA testing technologies and its admission in the US judicial system has led to an increase in appeal cases by the criminals seeking to overturn their sentences. For instance, the Innocence Project highlights Habib Wahir’s case, a “criminal” who served a wrongful conviction of 16 years after a young rape victim wrongfully identified him as her rapist (“Habib Wahir Abdal”). According to the organization, the sufferer identified Habib as the attacker, despite him being a foot taller than her alleged aggressor (“Habib Wahir Abdal”). Moreover, Habib did not have a gap between his teeth, another primary description of the victim’s sex-offender given to the police by the abused woman. Since DNA testing was not advanced at the time, Habib was sentenced to 20 years to life, a judgment which he later appealed against. During the appeal, the court found that the semen left in the lady by the culprit did not match Habib’s DNA (“Habib Wahir Abdal”). Thus, it meant that he was not the rapist.
Habib’s case is an excellent example of situations in which DNA testing should be admitted in court when reexamining the cases determined before the technology was developed. I suggest that all the cases where DNA evidence was collected, or can still be obtained, should be retried. It would help free the suspects such as Habib, who were wrongfully convicted, and lead to the correct sentencing of suspects, who might have been released due to lack of enough evidence. However, there is a worry that the redetermination of these cases might overwhelm the court system with numerous appeals by the criminals seeking a way out of serving their full sentences. I suggest that it should not be a concern because it is better to listen to numerous appeals than have innocent people incarcerated for offenses they did not perpetrate.
Work Cited
“Habib Wahir Abdal.”Innocence Project, Web.