To the Editor:
Re “Court Rejects Inmate Right to DNA Tests” (front page, June 19):
The five hard-line conservative justices on the Supreme Court have once again acted to curtail justice in our country. There is no reason, if DNA evidence can exonerate an innocent convict, that the simple test ought not be given.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s argument that such a right would overthrow the established criminal justice system makes absolutely no sense, and only reveals his anxiety to uphold the institution of justice rather than its spirit.
The aim of the justice system is to establish the facts of each case. Therefore, the opposite of Justice Roberts’s argument is true: far from overthrowing the system, DNA testing would affirm it, whereas to refuse to examine pertinent DNA evidence would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
William Youmans
New York, June 18, 2009
Note from KBJ: Have you ever seen the term "hard-line progressive [or liberal] justices"? I haven't. Do progressives think that only conservatives are hard-line? And by the way, Justice Anthony Kennedy is a swing vote on the Court. There is no sense in which he is "hard-line." Many conservatives don't even consider him a conservative, much less a "hard-line conservative." Memo to the letter writer: You undermine your credibility when you use manipulative rhetoric. About all it accomplishes is making you feel good.
Note 2 from KBJ: Yesterday, I posted a quotation by Theodore Dalyrmple, who describes two ways in which rights expand: first, negative rights become positive rights; second, defeasible rights become indefeasible (i.e., absolute) rights. This letter illustrates a third way: statutory, common-law, or even moral rights become constitutional rights. To say that there is no constitutional right to X does not mean that there is no right to X. If you think there should be a legal right to DNA evidence, you should convey your sentiment to your elected representatives.
