(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)

In maximum instances, it would not be reasonable blame a lone offender which is the police, prosecutor, defense lawyers, trial judges, juries, appellate courts, or legislators. Wrongful convictions actually happen in a team sport. However that must not release everybody from responsibility. The matters as of now, the responsible parties are rarely held answerable voted out of office, removed, disciplinary order passed, or put under civil damages. In majority of cases, they fail to admit their fault, mush less express regret for them. There no instances...

Consequently, some mistakes remain and are often repeated. The State of North Carolina has built a separate commission in order to evaluate the manner in which people get convicted and what is needed to be performed to deal with wrongful conviction. (Christianson, 2003)
Among the most side-stepped features of the issue remains that instance of wrongful conviction shows examples in which the actual go scot-free. In almost all cases it happens that liberating the wrong man does not do anything to assist in bringing the person who is guilty to justice. This fact sometimes gets hidden. At times the same mistake prosecutor has since given the real killer exemption from prosecution or permitted the statute of limitation to pass. Because of this, the victim of crime might once again perceive to be deceived, deserted, or ashamed. On the whole, wrongful convictions represent awful and expensive mistakes in our system of justice in our society. Sometimes these actions remain unnoticed, save by the real criminals and their concealed victims who are wrongly convicted. (Christianson, 2003)