A Times Editorial

DNA testing increases certainty

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 7, 2000

When Texas Gov. George W. Bush granted convicted child killer Ricky McGinn a 30-day reprieve last week from his scheduled execution to allow for DNA testing of relevant evidence, some dismissed the move as just another calculated attempt to buff his image as a compassionate conservative. Whatever the motivation, the decision makes Bush appear one small step ahead of Al Gore (and his own brother Jeb Bush, for that matter) on the issue of post-conviction DNA testing.

Gore so far has refused to endorse a bipartisan bill pending in Congress that seeks to guarantee DNA testing and competent public defenders in capital cases. The vice president supports the death penalty but reportedly sees no political gain in talking about it. Bush, who has said he is "absolutely confident" that all those put to death on his watch as governor were guilty, has yet to take a position on the bill.

Both presidential candidates should understand that this bill is not about being for or against the death penalty. Its purpose is simple: To reduce the risk that the state will ever take an innocent life.

A campaign spokesman has said Gore supports the spirit of the bill but opposes some of its provisions. It's more likely that Gore is wary of being viewed as soft on crime by the majority of Americans who support the death penalty.

The bill pending in Congress, known as the Innocence Protection Act, would give state and federal inmates, and not just those on death row, the right to use DNA testing to try to prove their innocence. It is aimed particularly at those on death row who were sentenced before the advent of DNA testing, allowing their cases to be reopened when this evidence could be pertinent to their case.

It does not in any way impede the court's ability to sentence a convicted killer to death. Even pro-death penalty Republicans acknowledge the bill is a good way to make sure authorities prosecute and punish the right criminal.

With the political advantage of not having to preside over executions, Gore is keeping a low profile on the issue. He cannot compete in the tough-on-crime category with a governor who has presided over 131 executions. But he could demonstrate a capacity for moral leadership by standing with those on both sides of the death penalty debate who favor anything to reduce the odds that an innocent person could be put to death by the state.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.