Isn't justice a civil right?

On May 14, Alaska became the 48th state to allow prisoners to seek post-conviction DNA testing in cases where it could prove innocence. Now only Oklahoma and Massachusetts lack such a provision.

I wonder why it is even in question.

According to the Innocence Project, which was founded in 1992 to work for exoneration of the innocent through post-conviction DNA testing, more than 240 people in the U.S. have had their convictions overturned as a result. Nevertheless, even in states where post-conviction DNA testing is permitted, laws are often limited in scope, and motions for DNA testing are often denied.

Again, I wonder why it is even in question.

If DNA is available which could prove that you're punishing the right -- or wrong -- person, what good reason could there be to refuse to test the evidence?

This is especially crucial in capital cases. After all, what good reason could there be to risk the possibility of executing the wrong guy?

The egos of the prosecutors, or prejudices of any court, are not good reasons.

I am not a lawyer, but this seems to me like something that any reasonable person would consider a basic civil right. And it seems to me that evidence denied is justice denied.

Still, the courts remain sharply divided on this issue and tend to focus on process rather than innocence.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. What punishment is more cruel and unusual than executing the wrong person?

What good reason could there be for this to happen in America?

Again, I wonder why it is even in question.