Media, Technology, and Education
Dangers

Travesty of Justice

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in a case from Alaska that the state does not have to provide physical evidence (which the state still has) to a man who has been in prison for 16 years for the purposes of new DNA testing (which the man has agreed to pay for himself).  Ed Brayton provides an excellent analysis of the case and explains the negative impact of the decision on our justice system.

Article written by:

I am currently Professor of Digital Media at Plymouth State University in Plymouth, NH. I am also the current Coordinator of General Education at the University. I am interested in game studies, digital literacies, open pedagogies, and generally how technology impacts our culture.

1 Comment

  1. Ann

    I heard this on NHPR, too, and totally did not understand why they decided on this ruling. What do you mean a person does not have a ‘constitutional’ right to evidence used in his or her case? That just seems totally wacked to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Creative Commons License Licensed by Cathie LeBlanc under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License