Not every time but with increasing (and frightening) occurrence, the Supreme Court of this great land of ours does something so mind-numbingly unfair that I can't believe it. On a 5-4 vote (of course), they recently ruled that if you're convicted of a crime and there's DNA evidence that could prove conclusively if you did it, you do not necessarily have a right to have that evidence. The cause of justice is somehow better served if you just remain behind bars, insisting you didn't do it. Apparently, our courts are already too crowded to bother with a little thing like imprisoning the right person.
I read about the decision on this webpage and I thought, "This can't be all there is to it. There must be a more logical case to be made for this decision." But I've looked at about a dozen other articles and I sure can't find one. If you've got one, pass it along.