In the last decade, DNA analysis has become a mainstay of the criminal justice system the gold standard for identification (Liptak). The role of deliberation in the integration of technology and society examines where we, as a society, have reached a consensus or should on the use of DNA in the justice system, and also points to the unsettled areas of debate in which there remains room for reasonable disagreement. DNA technology has been rapidly and fairly easily integrated into the courtroom; its integration into the pre and post-trial areas has been slower and more complex. Nevertheless, some broad areas of agreement exist, or should exist, in these areas, including: that some level of post-conviction relief is warranted; and that some forms of DNA databases are effective and appropriate investigatory tools.

Areas of Consensus There are two broad areas of consensus. First, that DNA changes the meaning of time in the justice system. From this principle follows a number of measures to take in consideration: that evidence must be preserved; that there should be statutory criteria for post-conviction access and review of evidence; and those statutes of limitation should be increased or abolished. The second area of consensus is that DNA databases in some form, at least are legitimate and effective investigatory tools. Time has been deeply programmed into justice both pre conviction, with respect to statutes of limitation, and post-conviction, in limitations on bringing new evidence to bear. DNA has undermined this fundamental tenet of the justice system, and a consensus has developed that the rules of the system must be altered to reflect this.

Evidence Preservation Any policy debate over how to manage inmate access to DNA testing must logically assume that the evidence to be tested exists and is locatable. Yet in many cases, such evidence has been