While still a teenager years ago, I remember the furor
about the protection of a person’s rights and the surprising opposition against
the proposed DNA Evidence Act. Being exposed to television shows such as Law and Order where it appeared to
be standard practice for DNA evidence to be used to aid in determining an
accused’s person’s guilt, I was a bit confused and taken aback at the debate
which ensued. Cognizant of Jamaica’s high crime rate and the perceived
inability of the State in controlling and reducing crime, the most natural
question I asked was “Why is DNA evidence so bad?”
Mulling over the issue back
then, I queried whether the Law Makers had something to gain, as so many
esteemed politicians were trained Defense lawyers. I pushed that thought out of
my mind as I could not fathom that self interst could trump Nationalism. I
questioned and received no answers.
The argument that DNA
evidence trumps privacy and should not be utilized is flawed. If that is the
case for opposition then fingerprint evidence is equally as invasive and should
not be collected. The presumption is that an accused person is “innocent until
proven guilty”, however that is not an absolute presumption as seen with how
the court treats with bail applications, rejecting bail for some offences
punishable by imprisonment based on how high-risk the person appears to be.
Whether that person will come back to court at the next hearing, interfere with
witnesses, or very importantly what the offence is that the person is charged
with- Rape and Murder, as one can imagine is not taken lightly.
Our laws were fashioned off
the UK and many of their cases are used as leading precedents by lawyers that
argue their case before the courts to try and persuade guilt. Their laws have
been amended to reflect developments in technology and crime fighting
strategies while ours have remained static, contributing to the stagnation of
our court system as more crimes are commited in Jamaica, through no fear of
repercussions as our criminals simply do not fear ore respect the Justice
system.
An accused person is not
forced by law to assist the prosecution in furtherance of his right to not
incriminate himself, however DNA is a test which assists in the process of
non-incrimination of a person who is not guilty. If you do the crime, it should
follow logically that you do the time. Using loopholes of the Justice system to
facilitate criminal behavior has become a feature of the said system which aids
in hindering our development and crime reduction. Is the real aim of the system
to get justice for those wronged whether it be the accused or a victim?
The Prosecution has the full
responsibility of proving the guilt of the accused, and should do so within a framework
which seeks to protect the innocent. The Constitution is not to be used as a
mechanism to violate human rights but to protect those rights. So those who
actually make a choice, and act on that choice to do something illegal and
violate another person’s human rights should not be allowed to slip through the
cracks.
There is an issue with witnesses
due to our “informer fi dead” mentality so many persons get off Scot free after suffering minor conveniences of jail time before being granted bail, DNA
however is irrefutable. Concerns regarding corruption and misuse of DNA
evidence by Police or the State need to be addressed. A chain of custody for
this evidence needs to be adhered to, so that if there is a break in the chain,
the offender can be found and the law can deal with them swiftly. This means
that harsh enforceable penalties need to be put in place for persons who
collect and handle the DNA, and there should always be an atmosphere of transparency
for both the prosecution and Defense.
The DNA bank thus needs to
operate at International standards so that samples cannot be compromised and
security needs to be on point. There has always been a concern of planting
evidence at a seen, this is a real issue which needs to be addressed, as
corrupt police officers on different occasions seek to get an “easy” conviction.
Perhaps the use of body cameras by Crime Scene investigators needs to become
standard practice and evidence not captured immediately on footage cannot be admissible.
Maybe I am reaching with my suggestions, but I believe that every problem has a
solution, and the use of DNA evidence after so many years of opposition should
finally be allowed and embraced in the pursuit of justice for all- both the
victim and also importantly the accused. There have been so many situations
where persons have been saved from years of confinement due to DNA evidence. If
our aim is to protect the guilty who can afford to pay for a good Defence
lawyer, then the DNA Act is counterproductive, but if the aim is for true
Justice then there should be no problem with it.
