Wrongful convictions: causes, impacts, and legal remedies

Wrongful Convictions

Why is the issue of 'wrongful convictions' problematic:

considerable number of men and women who are not guilty have been convicted with some of them wrongfully executed as well. Till the time decision regarding culpability or virtuousness lie in the control of human beings i.e. individuals for that matter, it is inevitable that wrongful convictions will recur. On a practical level, thus the challenge for those in charge of the criminal justice system is to minimize, if not prevent the number of errors in delivering justice. It is important to note that criminal trials are conducted within the framework of the social, political and economic state of affairs of the time. A trial may perhaps on paper be an intentional quest of fact channeled though proven principles of criminal procedure and substantiation, but on the practical level a lot of subjective causes impact the direction of events. (MacFarlane, 2003)

The four vital environmental or predisposing situations that result in wrongful convictions are (i) public demand to make conviction in grave and cases where there is involvement of people occupying high positions. (ii) a defendant who is not so popular, sometimes an outsider and member belonging to a minority group. (iii) a regional legal settings which has transformed the adversarial procedure into a "game" with the consequence that the quest of the truth has yielded to the strategies, maneuvering and a wish to be triumphant come whatever may. (iv) Noble cause of corruption: The conviction that the end justifies the means as the suspect has done the crime and lack of suitable practices are reasoned to make sure of a conviction. Several factors contribute towards miscarriages of justice. Some entail a decision by the police or prosecutor to look for conviction of the defendant regardless of a suitable evidentiary foundation proving the guilt. Some are the outcomes of inattention, unruliness or delinquency by the authorities. Besides, there are others which are the outcome of a thoughtful but imprudent mistake which anybody might commit. Sometimes, it is seen that several causes interact into single one, and stimulate one another into a wrongful conviction. (MacFarlane, 2003)

The main causes why the issue of wrongful conviction continues to be problematic are: (i) misidentification of eyewitnesses (ii) lack of proper dealing during investigation by the police (ii) lack of substantial disclosure by the prosecution (iii) undependable scientific proof (iv) Witnesses who are themselves criminals (v) unsuitable defense work (vi) confessions that are false (vii) confusing circumstantial evidence. Added causes which are either less widespread or regarding which nothing sufficient is known cover: judicial errors, unintentional error in witness, perjury, insufficient consideration of alibi evidence and lack of sufficient defense resources. Among the factors discussed, the most important factor resulting in wrongful convictions is misidentification of eyewitnesses. The risk related with this evidence is that it is deceivingly believable, mainly due to the fact that it is both truthful and sincere. (MacFarlane, 2003)

Judging from a different perspective, unanimity against wrongful conviction is impeded by the philosophy that portrays wrongful convictions as a phenomenon that has racial hues or as the handiwork of the 'white male hegemonic order'. Wrongful conviction is very pervasive and a severe issue to be politicized. In reality, inner-black juries constitute to be more doubtful of the cases brought by the police as well as prosecutors compared to white suburban juries. If the arm-twisting plea bargains were not present, inner-city blacks would encounter a reduced threat of wrongful conviction compared to whites. The attention on racial prejudice hides the real issue of misconduct in prosecution. Blackstone perceived of law as the armory of the people. He stated that it is considered to be better if 10 guilty persons are allowed to go scot-free than convicting an innocent person. Cases of wrongful convictions is spiraling as the protections against the same have been battered by the pursuit of anti-socials such as child molesters, drug dealers, crimes committed by the white collared and extremists. The legal set up as perceived by Blackstone has been lost. Earlier, prosecutorial behavior was controlled by conscience and also by vigilantly instilled ethic that the responsibility of the prosecutor is serving justice by unearthing the truth. The objective behind a trial was evaluating the substantiation for and against the defendant and never to convict him at ay expense. The career and self-confidence of a prosecutor is not dependent on the rate of conviction. (Roberts, 2003)

In situations where the expression 'miscarriages of justice is applied it is most characteristically identified with what is known as 'wrongful convictions. To start with, the expression wrongful convictions which have been described by Nobles and Schiff are problematic has frequently assumed to signify that in situation wherein 'miscarriages of justice have happened there has by some means been a denial of truth. To put it in a different manner, a miscarriage of justice has happened at the point when an individual is convicted as the precise verdict has not been reached. The very concept of wrongful conviction is smeared with this concept of truth as the mirror opposite of error and the two are nearly impossible to prove explicitly. (Newborn; Williamson; Wright, 2007)

Nobles and Schiff pose a challenge to this idea of an absolute truth that stands outside the justice system which is imprecise because of mismanagement, absence of professionalism or mere errors within the criminal justice system. They provide more comparative idea of miscarriages of justice when a gap between the values alleged for the criminal justice system - i.e. due process, adherence to rules, privileges of suspects and the like occurs. In this accord it can argued that it is more correct to make use of the term questionable convictions compared to wrongful convictions the meaning of which implies convictions founded on grounds that seem to be at disagreement with the expression of criminal justice and that are open to challenge by other people. (Newborn; Williamson; Wright, 2007)

Nevertheless the description of miscarriages of justice as linked to doubtful convictions is just partly sufficient. A rising awareness has gathered that miscarriages of justice is also possible to happen in situations where there is no action as also inaction, in the meaning that an act has happened which is an offense against a victim. But no action or inadequate action has followed. Truly, every time a doubtful conviction is revealed, one more 'miscarriage of justice is revealed at one and the same time, in the meaning that the revelation of a doubtful conviction leaves an offence for which nobody stands identified. Whereas majority of the research on miscarriages of justice and in fact majority of the media attention has concentrated on wrongful convictions, miscarriages based on failure to act, increasingly merits attention also. (Newborn; Williamson; Wright, 2007)

2) Consequences for professional practice:

Wrongful convictions do not happen in a void of legal apathy. Almost all cases of wrongful convictions emanate from a willful system entailing law enforcement investigators, prosecutors, and more than one trial level and appellate judges. Even though prosecutors, investigating cops, defense lawyers and lab technicians have all been condemned in different sections of the media, for their role in wrongful convictions, in general judges have remained unaffected from criticisms. This accommodating behavior might be because of the reality that occupying elevated positions, judges are sometimes portrayed by the media as unbiased, without political connections, possessing great astuteness, knowledge and compassion. But on the contrary, matters that happen on the ground are quite different. Delving beneath the public veneer which has shielded judges from serious inspection shows that from the haughty podium they happen to be the key person in the practical drama of the prosecution of an innocent person and its subsequent conviction. This critique of the judiciaries playing a role in making a wide group of people who are legally disadvantaged i.e. who are wrongfully convicted is presented in the spirit of raising an understanding of the type of their involvement in the process. It is solely through criticism that a positive discussion can hope to be started towards weaning the enabling role of the judiciary in the process of wrongful conviction, in the absence of which there cannot be any supposition of a lowering in their happening. (Sherrer, 2003)

3) Reasons why the issues haven't been resolved to this point:

The issues of wrongful convictions continue to plague the justice system because of the flaws inherent within the system. Careful examination of the issue of wrongful convictions in the years ending with the 2003 AJS national conference has opened up some important analysis why the problem continue to recur and also to a number of propositions for means to deal with the defects which has been exposed. The important reasons why wrongful convictions is yet to be resolved are (i) wrongful identification of the defendant as the person who has committed the crime, by the victim or a different person, and use of the wrong 'eyewitness' testimony during trial (ii) fake testimony by an informer who possesses an incentive to deliver perjured testimony (iii) dependence on forensic evidence as also qualified testimony that is not established according to annals of science for instance the use of hair comparisons of minute nature and evidence of bite mark. (iv) misconduct by the police or unintentional mistake, together with the application of suggestive identification procedures, pressuring of a confession or inculpatory declaration by a suspect, not carrying out other channels of investigation following initial detection of a powerful suspect, and being unsuccessful to give the prosecutor enough proof which is able to point to an individual other than the defendant as the person behind the act. (v) Mistake in the procedure, inclusive of failure to reveal evidence which is able to exonerate the defendant, application of unreliable proof and statement given during trial in a fit of rage. (vi) Substandard defense mechanism by the lawyer that includes failure to get an appropriate disclosure of evidence. (Mahoney, 2005)

4) How the issue impacts other components of the criminal justice system:

In criminal justice, goals like lowered levels of reported crime for the police or for committing the offence once again for the prison and probation services can be useful for concentrating and making comparisons, but the process of fixing and monitoring them should concede the broad array of social, economic and individual factors that impacts the outcomes as also the performance of the service concerned. Genuine dangers are there in case people who are responsible for the criminal justice services come to be preoccupied with the system itself. Also a target like minimizing delay must admit the requirement the need to guarantee considerations for victims as well as witnesses and avoid wrongful convictions. The approach of the government towards crime and the criminal justice system is normally utilitarian as also instrumental instead of classical or retributive. The instrumental view is vibrantly articulated in the first of the aims of the Government for the criminal justice system, and its resolve on safeguarding the public as the primary duty of the criminal justice system along with the people who work in them. (Faulkner, 2001)