Supreme Court says convicts don't have a right to DNA testing

All too often, people get convicted of crimes they did not commit. To date, the work of the Innocence Project has resulted in the exoneration of some 240 people who had been wrongfully convicted -- many of whom had been sentenced to death.

Most of those exonerations were based on DNA evidence.

Nevertheless, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided that suspects/convicts do not necessarily have a constitutional right to DNA evidence that could prove their innocence.

What???!!!

I have seen cases, such as that of Tommy Arthur of Alabama, in which states have simply chosen not to bother looking at DNA evidence that could prove a person's innocence, even if that potentially innocent person is sitting on death row for a crime he did not commit.

That is not what I would call justice.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution describes the mission of that document as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." (emphasis mine)

But it appears to me that the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled against justice.