Wrongful Convictions Pros And Cons

The source examines the impact of victims being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and the international approach to the issue. Australia has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) signed by the Australian government in 1972, which states once a person has been wrongfully convicted and they have received a punishment, by law they are entitled to compensation unless its proved there is an unknown fact which has arisen. However, this was never adopted into Australian law, as a result any individual wrongfully convicted and imprisoned isn’t entitled to any compensation under Australian law. Australia’s commitments to signing this is that all states and territories must meet their obligations under article 14 (6) which are incorporation of the domestic article into domestic legislation to ensure a legal right to compensation. Though a state or territory government does have the ability to make an ex gratia payment to a wrongfully convicted individual through a request or their own doing.

The Canadian case I selected in which a wrongful conviction occurred was of Robert Baltovich. In 1992 Baltovich was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his girlfriend Elizabeth Bain and he was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for the next 17 years (Innocence Canada, 2016). This case took place in Scarborough, Ontario and Baltovich spent eight years behind bars for a crime he did not do. Baltovich got a retrial and he was finally released on April 22, 2008. Bain’s murder still remains a mystery, her car was found with a bloodstain on the back seat but her body was never discovered.

Have you ever been accused of something you didn 't do? Stealing something, not doing your homework, etc... Well there are people all over America that have been accused of stealing, killing or other crimes that they did not commit, and they were severely punished for it. People like Claude Jones, Cameron Todd Willingham, and Larry Griffin, were all falsely accused and punished for a crime someone else committed. Some were even put away because there was false evidence provided.

Wrongful convictions are not very common in the United States, studies estimate that 4%-5% of people convicted in United States prisons are actually innocent. Adnan Syed was wrongfully convicted for the murder of Hae Min Lee. There is tons of evidence to prove why he is innocent and guilty. Ultimately, he was proven innocent after 23 years of false imprisonment. There were many misleading facts/statements and unfair trials due to the defense.

In other instances, like in Steven Truscott’s murder case, prosecutors pushed for the death penalty for the fourteen year old, as the death penalty would generate much more interest than life in prison. Truscott was later aquitted of the murder and the governement of Ontario awarded him 6.5 million in compensation.(Ontario Compensates Steven Truscott) When prosecutors push for a conviction for the purpose of getting a conviction and not the truth, a grave unjustice has been commited. Pushing for the death penalty and ignoring evidence of innocence causes courts to lose sight of the the truth. Our justice system must be reformed to prevent similar instances from happening in the future.

There exonerations lead to changes within the judicial system and establishing laws that invoke the change needed. Also, there is an increase pressure for accountability on law enforcement and all other judicial systems. The exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals also leads to the awareness that not only does the judicial system need to change but the sentencing laws to be reformed as well. Even though in Cheryle case corruption played a part in her guilt in her case, there was no way she should have received a life sentence for unlawful possession

Wrongful convictions are a problem that most government officials won’t admit. The United States and other countries such as Australia have been susceptible to these miscarriages of justice. This can arise from a snowball effect of scenarios such as witness misidentification, perjured testimonies, coercive methods of interrogation, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective counsel. These are some of the reasons that can potentially lead innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not commit. The thousands of exonerations in the United States has caused concern for other nations to reevaluate their criminal justice system.

In 1711, most of those accused were exonerated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and compensation was paid to survivors and their families. News of the trials was put to rest until 1957 when the state of Massachusetts finally formally apologized to the public for the trials. However, it was not until 2001 that the last eleven victims were exonerated. As a result of the brutality of the trials, court procedures were changed in the United States. Accused personnel now have the right to legal representation during their trial.

Innocent Until Proven “Guilty” The United States justice system promises things like the right to a fair trial and a public defender if one is not able to afford a lawyer of their own. However, one thing that the public is not promised is protection from themselves. Scott O. Lilienfeld's 50 Great Myths Of Popular Psychology states that a common misconception is that "virtually all people who confess to a crime are guilty of it." Through my reading and extended research, I have discovered a vast amount of information pertaining to false confessions.

Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,

To be committed of a crime the judge or jurors must have enough evidence that there is no other possible explanation, this is referred to as beyond a reasonable doubt. If this is held true, how can someone still be wrongfully convicted? According to Sphohn, Cassia (2014) in 2008 more than 1.6 million United States citizens was imprisoned (p. 5.35). If only .5% of those individuals were innocent that would mean that 8,000 people are wrongfully convicted. That also means there are 8,000 people who are guilty of those crimes free among society.

With millions of criminal convictions a year, more than two million people may end up behind bars(Gross). According to Samuel Gross reporter for The Washington Post, writes that also “even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic [wrongful conviction] errors”(Gross). Citizens who are wrongfully convicted are incarcerated for a crime he or she did not commit. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges are responsible for the verdict that puts innocents into prison. To be able to get exonerated many wait over a decade just to get there case looked at, not many are able to have the opportunity of getting out.

Luckily, it is known what causes wrongful convictions and how to fix them. Many wrongful convictions are due to mistaken eyewitnesses, jailhouse snitches, or false evidence. I think many of the wrongful convictions could be solved with harder evidence, more information. A case should not rely on a single eye witness but multiple.

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).

The shortcoming of this approach is that it is not appropriate for more serious crimes such as rape and murder, because in cases like those, most of the time there is nothing that offenders can do to restore the loss or make things right The benefit of this approach is that all parties who are involved get the chance to face each other. The victims get an opportunity to be directly involved in the process and get a chance to respond to the crime committed against them. The offender becomes aware of how their offense has impacted the victim, and this in turn allows the offender to take responsibility and to apologize or show remorse to their wrong doings. Through the process healing is promoted to all the parties involved, the offender might be required to pay for the harm caused.