To DNA or Not to DNA?
by Jessica Jimenez

The end line of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, "...liberty and justice for all" makes a bold promise of fairness and equality. Yet despite the pledge's idealistic values, throughout its history the United States has struggled with slavery, chauvinism, wars of attrition, and other injustices. After more than 200 years of existence, the United States still hasn't perfected its promises, which may be understandable-democracy is messy. Still, there have been, and are, instances where the government has shown outright stupidity in its decision making.

For instance, William G. Osborne, a man convicted in 1993 for the sexual assault and kidnapping of a woman in Anchorage, Alaska, is being denied the right to clear his name with the use of DNA testing, even after he offered to pay for the expenses himself. The Alaskan State Government, the Bush Administration, and now the Obama Administration have all denied his request. Their fear is that if Osborne is allowed access to the DNA from his trial, a precedent will be set for other convicted felons to appeal for the right to DNA testing, causing a surge of lawsuits and appeals that will congest the courts.

This fear, however, seems unsubstantiated when it is taken into consideration that at least 38 states already have post-conviction DNA laws in place, allowing some, if not most, inmates access to the DNA in their case file. In Alaska alone there are only seven DNA request cases according to the Assistant Attorney General's office. Meanwhile, post-conviction DNA laws have allowed 232 people to be exonerated. That's 232 innocent people-17 of whom were on death row. The other 215 would have unjustly rotted in prison.

Even if congestion of the courts were to become a problem in the states without DNA laws, a human life should be more important than having to spend some extra time filing papers.

The only other issue that the opponents of Osborne's request can then cling to is the question of whether he deserves the appeal. Do we have a right to make such a decision? Who are we to judge who deserves to prove their innocence or ascertain their guilt? It is an absurd notion to be sure.

Is Osborne guilty? There's a huge possibility that he is, especially under the circumstances of his trial, where he admitted his guilt twice and was identified in a photo lineup. However, until his DNA is examined we cannot be certain. After all, what do we have to lose? If the DNA test comes back positive, linking Osborne concretely to the victim, then at least we can be sure of his guilt. If the test comes back negative, a possibly innocent man may go free (depending on the rest of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case) and the one guilty for the crime can be sought and prosecuted. There is no catch-22—it's simple American justice.