Should DNA testing be guaranteed to defendants in Capital Murder cases under the 6th Amendant?

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I sat on this for an entire 24 hour period, so that I could gather and organize my thoughts correctly, so here, unfortunately, is the result:

I would agree that DNA testing should be conducted in capital murder cases as well as any serious or violent crime. However I don't think that it would pass under the 6th amendment :

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This amendment does not offer the right of collecting evidence against them. I think that a new amendment would have to be passed. But I certainly agree that it needs and is long over due to become part of due process. Furthermore, I think that once this is implemented then the sentencing structure should be reformed and increased, and the death penalty issue should be readdressed by all states that have a moratorium on it.

regardless of the reason why.

The death penalty is a serious thing, we need to ensure that if we are going to execute someone that they are guilty beyond a reasonable guilt.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Troper8,

I agree that it should be a right in Capital Murder cases, but we all know how hard it is to pass a new Amendmant. I think that it could be interpreted to fal under this line from the 6th Amendmant: "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor".

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well, that might be a big stretch, maybe too big for some opponents to take advantage of. The "witnesses" that are being referred to, I believe in the "letter of the law" view, would be eye witnesses, thusly not really able to contribute anything to the DNA argument. Even in the "spirit of the law" view, the witnesses would only be able to testify to results of DNA testing, which undoubtedly would be refuted by the defense.

DNA can be harvested from garbage- when a person throws out their garbage, they forgo all rights as to how itll be used. Saliva from soda cans, etc can be tested

Well, that is true, however the discussion is over the right to DNA testing, not the rights to the DNA itself.