Top 5 Reasons Pennsylvania May Not be the next DNA collection State

Today's Supreme Court decision that upheld Maryland's preconviction DNA collection law was pretty much atrocious, as pointed out earlier by my colleague Ngani. But there's no guarantee that Pennsylvania will be next. Here's why, from the home office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

5. Last year the state Senate passed a preconviction DNA bill. It was rejected by the state House. In October, the House passed an amendment by a freshman Democrat, Representative Brandon Neuman of Washington County, that gutted the bill, including the DNA collection provision with 132 votes in favor of the amendment. This bipartisan coalition included the Speaker of the House.

4. The public safety arguments fall flat. In 2011, Maryland collected 11,000 DNA samples from people charged but not yet convicted of a crime under its law. That led to nine additional convictions for unsolved crimes. Not 90. Not 900. Not 9,999. But nine. Plus, under the commonwealth's current, postconviction DNA law, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) has a backlog of eight months to test DNA samples, a backlog that will only balloon if the legislature passes a preconviction collection bill. No one can argue with a straight face that preconviction DNA collection protects public safety.

3. It's expensive. PSP has estimated that preconviction DNA collection would cost $13 million.

2. The right to privacy under the state constitution is robust. Pennsylvania courts have consistently ruled that Article I, Section VIII of the state constitution provides greater privacy protections in search-and-seizures than the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.

1. The ACLU of Pennsylvania is on it. And we're awesome.

2011 in Review: The death penalty for people with intellectual disability

For more than a decade, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has advocated to truly end the execution of people with intellectual disability, formerly known as mental retardation, in our state. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision outlawing the practice in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, we pushed for the passage of legislation to end this grotesque practice. 

Since that case, we have worked with disability advocates throughout the state and with members of the legislature to implement a procedure that would require a judge to decide before trial that a person has ID and cannot be executed.  On four separate occasions, including earlier this year, the state Senate passed legislation with this procedure with overwhelming bipartisan support, but the bill has never made it through the state House.

Last week, the long struggle to implement the Atkins decision in the commonwealth took a turn for the worse. In a case out of Lancaster County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court implemented a procedure for trial courts to follow when a defendant in a capital case files a claim of intellectual disability (ID).

• The jury will rule on the claim
• The jury will hear the claim after it has convicted the person of first degree murder
• The burden is on the defendant to prove that he has ID
• The jury's ruling in favor of the defendant must be unanimous

So what does this mean? This means that all jurors in these cases must be what's known as "death qualified," meaning that they must be willing to implement the death penalty.  Research shows that death qualified jurors are more likely than non-death qualified jurors to trust prosecutors and police and are less likely to trust mental health experts.

As one friend in the capital legal world told me, the Supreme Court's ruling is what a court does if it wants to nullify the Atkins decision in Pennsylvania. People with ID who are on trial for their lives are more likely to end up on death row as a result of this ruling.

The fight is not over. There is no doubt that this ruling will be challenged in federal court, when an opportunity presents itself. But it is a reminder that the courts are not always our friend. It's a reminder that sometimes our issues must be resolved at the legislature. Former Governor Ed Rendell supported our position. The state Senate supported our position. But we couldn't get it through the House, and now we're left with a horrendous ruling from the state Supreme Court.

And this is why we need your support. Please consider making a year-end, tax-deductible donation to the ACLU of Pennsylvania because freedom can't protect itself.

Justice Scalia: Constitution doesn't protect women or gays from discrimination.

I'm just glad there are eight other opinions as important as his.

Juvenile Injustice

Meet Qu’eed Batts. Batts was a Blood street gang member in 2006 when he was arrested, tried as an adult, and convicted of committing murder when he was just 14.

Just over a month ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to Batts’ case on the juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) issue. At 17 he has been granted a petition to appeal, but his case won’t be seen until after the US Supreme Court decides on two Florida JLWOP cases, which take up the issue of whether or not sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Batts' case is just one of many juvenile cases that make juvenile justice one of the hottest topics in civil liberties, which is why the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter's Public Education Committee devoted an entire series to bringing these issues to the community.

The series, which began on September 10th with a discussion on the problem of juvenile life sentencing was led by Martha Conley, ACLU of PA Greater Pittsburgh board member, chair of the Pittsburgh chapter of Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, and associate producer of the film Lost in the Hype.

Pennsylvania has convicted more JLWOP than any other state in the US. Currently, PA host 444 prisoners who are serving life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles. Of the 2,574 serving in 39 states throughout the US, 60% were first time offenders, according to a 2005 study by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Two of the main reasons PA disproportionately houses more JLWOP inmates are:

1. A 1995 law that requires juveniles charged of serious crimes to bypass the juvenile courts and first be seen in adult courts. Reasoning being: “adult crimes deserve adult time”; however a growing body of medical research shows incomplete brain development, especially in the areas controlling impulse, planning, judgment, and foresight of consequences, in youth and young adults up to age 21.
2. Unlike other states, only the governor may grant clemency to anyone with the life without parole sentence, including children.

As for the public’s view, a February 2007 National Counsel on Crime and Delinquency study found that 89% of respondents believed rehabilitation services and treatment can prevent youth who have committed crimes from committing future crime. For more information regarding future Greater Pittsburgh Chapter discussion series, visit http://www.aclupa.org/chapters/greaterpittsburgh/discussionseries20092010.htm.

More information on juvenile life sentencing can be found here or here.


Kristine in Pittsburgh