Slate's Bizbox
human nature: Science, technology, and life.

Live and LearnJonBenet Ramsey and the death penalty.

By William Saletan
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008, at 10:14 AM ET
JonBenét Ramsey. Click image to expand.

It's amazing how much you can learn years later about evidence that's been right under your nose all along.

Remember JonBenet Ramsey? For years, I thought her mom had something to do with her death. Fortunately, I wasn't a grand juror. Because it turns out I was wrong.

On Wednesday, the district attorney in charge of the case sent a letter to JonBenet's father. "We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as 'touch DNA,'" says the letter. It describes a technique in which "forensic scientists scrape places where there are no stains or other signs of the possible presence of DNA to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present." Using this technique, a lab hired by the D.A. has managed "to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of [JonBenet's] long johns." It matches the profile obtained from DNA on the crotch of her underwear.

"The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items," the D.A. concludes. For this, "there is no innocent explanation." Accordingly, she declares that the Ramseys are no longer "under any suspicion."* The evidence of their innocence was in our hands all along. We just didn't have the technology to see it.

That's not the only such discovery announced this week. Here's another: According to press releases from Brown University and the Carnegie Institution, scientists have just "found evidence of water deep within the Moon." Did we get it by sending up a new lunar mission? No. "The water clue came from lunar volcanic glasses, pebble-like beads collected and returned to Earth by NASA's Apollo missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those beads have been sitting under our noses for 40 years. We found the evidence by developing and applying "new methods for analyzing lunar samples"—specifically, a refinement of secondary ion mass spectrometry. The official report is published in Nature.

I'm glad we didn't have to launch a whole new lunar mission to find what we found in the Apollo beads. But I'm far more relieved that the Ramseys weren't sent to jail for a crime in which they played no part. Others haven't been so fortunate. Hundreds were put away for crimes in which new evidence—DNA—now appears to have cleared them. According to the Innocence Project, DNA has already exonerated 218 U.S. convicts. Sixteen of them had been sent to death row. The evidence of their innocence was under our noses all along. We just didn't see it or use it.

I was about to write that we haven't yet executed anyone exonerated by DNA. But that's the wrong way to write the sentence. Here's the right way: We haven't yet exonerated by DNA anyone we've executed. The discovery comes after the act. In the case of the Apollo missions, the evidence waited 40 years. The Ramseys had to wait 12 years, long enough for JonBenet's mother to die while still under suspicion. But at least they weren't in jail. The Innocence Project reports: "The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,694."

What's really scary is that those 218 people were lucky. None of them had been put to death.

Viscerally, I support the death penalty. I think there's such a thing as deserving to die. But our pattern of discovering evidence right under our noses long after the fact should humble us about killing people. Do you think "touch DNA" is the last technology we'll discover in criminal forensics? How confident are you that none of the 1,100 people we've executed will end up being exonerated by a technology we didn't use or possess at the time?

The lesson of the Ramsey case and the moon beads is that you never have all the evidence, even when it's right in front of you. There's always more to be learned from a technology you haven't yet tried. You still have to make the best judgment you can at the time. You can't expect that judgment never to be corrected. But you have to leave it open to correction.

Correction, July 14, 2008: The district attorney, Mary Lacy, was originally referred to as "he." (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Comments from the Fray

A tip for those who fear wrongful conviction of a crime. Avoid repeated contact with the police. This puts you near the top of their list when investigating a crime. They might be tempted to frame you for a crime you didn't commit in place of those they know you have committed but couldn't prove.

--James Currin

(To reply, click here)

The Ramseys are lucky they were rich enough to deter the DA from going to trial. Had they been poor, they likely would have spent the last several years in jail and the clothing never tested. The fault here lies not with the science, but with juries. They don't seem to take seriously both the assumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and the concept that they don't have to know who did it to find someone not guilty. Just because some as-yet-unknown party isn't named doesn't mean the accused did it. How can so many people have been convicted of crimes they could not possibly have committed if they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? They were just the likely party, the one on trial…

As for the death penalty, it is inexcusable. There are people who should die for what they've done, but we are not the ones to judge that. Just as there are some things that shouldn't be said, yet the government can't be allowed to decide what should and shouldn't be said, it can't be allowed to decide who may live or die. It is made up of human far-too fallible human beings.

--MacAdviser

(To reply, click here)

(7/13)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby