A JonBenet Ramsey hypothetical
12 years after the crime occurred and after Patsy Ramsey's death from ovarian cancer, DNA evidence has exonerated the parents, clearing them of any suspicion. In a rare act of acknowledging their screw up, the DA's office apologized to the Ramseys, and:
The DA told the family: "We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered."
This story brings national attention to the forensic uses of DNA again - John Ramsey is urging the passage of laws that authorize the collection of DNA from arrestees who have not been convicted. The story also highlights the need for preservation of evidence and access to DNA evidence by inmates who have claims of innocence. South Carolina has legislation to accomplish both of these pending, which has been vetoed by the governor because the legislature tied both ideas into one bill.
The idea of collecting DNA from persons who have not been convicted of any crime is opposed by the governor as an unacceptable invasion of privacy. DNA, unlike fingerprints, contains genetic information that is extremely private and personal, that can be used for many purposes other than crime-fighting. On the other hand, the idea of mandating preservation of evidence and access to DNA testing for inmates should be a pretty basic concept of justice. Who can argue that we should keep innocent persons in prison, and who can argue, in the face of exonerations around the country, that there are not innocent persons in prison who can be identified by DNA evidence?
One lesson from this recent twist in the JonBenet Ramsey story is the difficulty of proving a negative - the parents could not prove that they did not murder the child. This is a problem in any criminal prosecution, and it is the reason that the burden of proof is always on the government. Imagine, you are interrogated because there is circumstantial evidence that you were involved in a murder last night. Maybe someone says they saw you there, maybe there was a motive for you to kill the person. You know that you were at home, alone, watching television or sleeping, but how can you prove it? You have no witnesses, no good alibi, and no real defense.
What would have happened if they had arrested, charged, and tried John and/or Patsy Ramsey? What if one of them had cracked while being interrogated? What if the investigator held them for hours incommunicado, and repeatedly assured them if they signed the confession they would not be in trouble, but if they did not they would fry? What if after they were placed under arrest a jail-house snitch appeared who swears that John Ramsey confessed in confidence while he was awaiting bail? A crack-pot wanting attention appeared as an eye-witness and the prosecutor found them to be credible for some reason? An officer lied about statements made by the couple?
If they had been arrested and charged, and any evidence was produced even if shaky, there would have been a real possibility that the jury would ignore the standard of proof and would have found them guilty. No-one wants to believe that police officers lie, or that a prosecutor doesn't know what he's talking about when he asks a jury to convict a person. And the facts of the crime were just horrible enough that no-one wants to take a chance on releasing the person who did it.
If that had happened, they would now, 12 years later, be asking for access to the DNA evidence, still trying to prove their innocence. If they were convicted in South Carolina, that evidence may well have been destroyed by now, and if it had not been destroyed, they would have no right to test it.
