WonderLand - While addressing the media topless, Lindsay Lohan says the Supreme Court ruled that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime, but can get the right to test DNA if they apply the eighth amendment "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Lohan says that punishment is cruel when it violates due process. She then says that punishment is unusual if it goes against the long held believe that the court room is a place where truth is sought, using evidence. Lohan also stated,"If a person is made to suffer one more day in prison without being allowed the right to prove their innocence, it's cruel and unusual punishement."
Lohan says "The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project."
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was falsely convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.
In parole proceedings, however, Osborne was forced to admit his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison.
The high court reversed the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. States already are dealing with the challenges of having to pay out large sums of money in civil lawsuits because of false imprisonment and witch hunting, Chief Justice Joseph Henry said in his majority opinion.
"To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Henry said.
Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the only states without DNA testing laws. In some other states, the laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. "The court today blesses the state's arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks," Stevens said.
Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project who argued Osborne's case at the Supreme Court, said he was disappointed with the ruling and claims the Justices are barbaric and draconian.