Sometimes the Will of the People and the Constitution Just Aren't Enough

The protagonist appears to be thoroughly unredeemable. William Osborne was convicted in Alaska of raping a prostitute. One story I read said he’d been released from prison on this charge and has been re-arrested on other serious charges.

His rape case has made its way from the Alaska courts, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on Monday will be argued before the United States Supreme Court.

Let’s assume Mr. Osborne is the scum that he may well be. He has asked to have the semen in a condom tested for a DNA match that helped to convict him, using a method that wasn’t existent back when he was tried. He has offered to pay for the testing. The State of Alaska has declined. It is one of six states that have laws that make release of samples discretionary.

You can read a neutral summary of the case here. An interesting opinion piece is found here.

The sovereign state of Alaska has made a political decision to not let someone prove their innocence after they’ve been tried and convicted, assuming no legal errors were committed when the person was tried. I suppose this is rational. To be legalistic, it might survive intermediate and strict scrutiny (Google for background it you want it).

But, judged by common sense, why does Alaska fear one of two results? One, the test provides further proof that the man raped the woman and he got what he deserved in the way of punishment. Two, the test proves that his sperm isn’t in the condom and perhaps, he didn’t do it.

The people of Alaska, through their elected officials, decided Osborne should be stuck with his “fair trial” on the logic that there is a stopping point to appeals of criminal convictions. I don’t know, but, I suspect given our current Supreme Court’s make-up, that the law passes Constitutional muster. But, and a big but, the guy may not have done it. If that is the case, politics and law have failed him; and, more importantly, us.