A fair legal process is an emblem of human
\ncivilization; states aspire to be true to the ideals of the law. Procedural
\nrights have spread around the world and are considered to be fundamental human
\nrights, even by the United Nations. States around the world have experienced
\ninnocence movements regarding wrongful convictions. The movements have occurred
\nat different times as a response to different social and political
\ncircumstances. Each has taken different forms and action that have generated
\ndifferent responses. Wrongful convictions have been at the forefront of the
\nmovement, with advancing technology being able to prove innocence or guilt. The
\ncauses of wrongful convictions have been attached to miscarriages of justice
\nthat occur due to procedural errors and system actors. (Gross, 2008)
\nAnalysis of wrongful convictions tends to be focused on false convictions.
\nHowever, there is high significance in procedurally flawed convictions that
\npose the challenges to legal systems that aim in keeping their stature as a
\nreliable system of law. William Blackstone\u2019s quote, \u201cbetter that ten guilty
\npersons escape than one innocent suffers,\u201d reflects the social consciousness of
\nwrongful convictions through history. Wrongful convictions violate the basic
\nright of liberty. That is why its existence generates numerous concerns:
\nadversarial system and its limits, due process\u2019 fallibility, violation of human
\nrights, and the legitimacy of any current criminal justice system.<\/p>\n
To clarify the issue presented, there is a
\nneed to define some terms. First, convictions are the verdict of a court that
\nidentifies an individual as a criminal in accordance to the law of the nation.
\nKeep in mind, convictions are only legitimate when the state has met due
\nprocess requirements by providing for all elements of a trial and proving the
\nelements in a trial. Wrongful convictions, for the purpose of this paper, is
\nwhen an individual who has been arrested, convicted, and punished for a crime
\nhe or she did not commit. To define wrongful conviction in an abstract way is
\none thing but devising a methodology for identifying a factually innocent
\nperson is confounding. Wrongful convictions are invisible when they occur,
\notherwise, indictments would be challenged, and juries would acquit. Miscarriage
\ncan be defined as the failed attempt to reach a goal. Thus, a miscarriage of
\njustice is considered to be the failure of attaining justice. <\/p>\n
The following data has been compiled by
\nstate, federal, and juvenile courts and law enforcement nationwide. The data
\npresents persons who have committed a crime and have been prosecuted for
\noffenses. <\/p>\n
Wrongful convictions in the United States
\nare not unheard of and have received a lot of attention from the media. The
\nmajority of these cases have resulted in unwarranted punishment, that for some
\nhas lasted many years. <\/p>\n
The United States court system beings with
\nDistrict Courts that that resolve disputes through the determination of facts
\nand applying law to find the truth. These include a district judge who tries
\nthe case, while a jury determines if innocent or guilty. (United States
\n Courts, 2018)
\nEach state has a district court to deal with disputes. Further is the Court of
\nAppeals that sits below the Supreme Court, with 94 districts. (United States
\n Courts, 2018)
\nThey handle appeals to determine if the law was applied correctly in a trial
\ncourt. These courts consist of three judges, but no jury. Lastly, there is the
\nSupreme Court that is the highest court in the United States. The Supreme Court does not only interpret the
\nConstitution, but it has the power to establish lower courts and their system. Keep
\nin mind that U.S. federal courts treat those under 18 years of age and older as
\nadults. State courts also consider a defendant an adult once they reach the age
\nof 18; there are some exceptions with states considering 16 or 17 the beginning
\nof adulthood. (United States Courts, 2018)<\/p>\n
The United States has a high Previous research England and Wales, similar to the United English and It is important to notice that the majority The Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted Additionally, the criminal process in A more recent reform is the Criminal Thus, the previously mentioned legislation I have identified several factors that can The causes of wrongful convictions have been attached to miscarriages of justice that occur due to procedural errors and system actors.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[85,84],"class_list":["post-295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essayscriminal-law","tag-uk-law","tag-us-law"],"yoast_head":"\n
\npopulation and high crime rates. 1.2 million violent crimes and 7.7 million
\nproperty crimes reported in 2017. (FBI, 2018)<\/strong> Violent crimes include, aggravated
\nassault, robbery, rape, and murder. Property crime includes larceny theft,
\nburglary, and motor vehicle theft. However, in 2017 U.S. District Courts had
\n367,937 cases. (Courts, 2017)<\/strong> With that in mind, there are
\napproximately 2.3 million people in confined in U.S. correctional facilities. (Prison policy, 2018)<\/strong> As mentioned,
\ncalculating the amount of wrongful convictions is not exactly possible.
\nHowever, there have been studies that have concluded that wrongful convictions
\noccur at a rate of 11.6 percent. (Walsh, Hussemann, Flynn, Yahner, & Golian, 2017)<\/strong> The study was
\npublished by the U.S. Department of Justice that shows the existence of
\nwrongful convictions and efforts to deal with the issue. <\/p>\nMethods<\/h2>\n
\nhas identified numerous factors that contribute to wrongful convictions in the United
\nStates: eyewitness misidentification, police behavior, prosecutors and defense,
\nand other factors. (University of Michigan, n.d.) Eyewitness
\nmisidentification occurs when a witness has mistakenly identified the accused
\nas the actual perpetrator of a specified crime. These are often compelling and
\nconvincing to the judge and jury. The persuasive nature of eyewitnesses is
\noften seen as \u201chard evidence\u201d but can actually be misinterpreted and fallible.
\nAdditionally, police behavior impacts the likelihood of a wrongful conviction.
\nCertain police interrogation methods can pressure the accused to make
\nprecipitous declarations. (Releases, 2001) This has been connection to the notion
\nof \u201ctunnel vision\u201d in which police have a single-minded focus on one suspect.
\nThis focus leads to the exclusion of other potential suspects and relevant
\nevidence that can show innocence. Moreover, reliance on highly skilled
\nattorneys has given an advantage to those who can afford them. The reliance on
\nskills and resources (human and budgetary) has given the prosecution an
\nadvantage that increase the chance of wrongful convictions. Law enforcement is
\nconstantly under public pressure to decrease crime rates and bring criminals to
\njustice. This pressure can be connected a police officer\u2019s tunnel vision during
\ninterrogation and investigation. Further, prosecutors play a role in the
\nconviction of the accused through the overzealousness of certain evidence.
\nSimultaneously, other potentially relevant evidence is ignored. Plea bargaining
\nis also considered to be a coercive practice that can result in innocent
\nindividuals pleading guilty, especially with the aforementioned police
\npractices. Criminal informants, who are individuals in custody who receive
\nspecial treatment in return for evidence against another accused. <\/p>\nEngland and Wales<\/h2>\n
\nStates, has gained social consciousness on the reality of wrongful convictions.
\n The data begins with an overview of the
\ncriminal justice system. <\/p>\nCourt System and rates<\/h3>\n
\nWelsh criminal justice system involves the Magistrates\u2019 courts and the Crown
\nCourt. (GOV.UK, 2018) Criminal cases start
\nout in the Magistrates\u2019 courts and are heard by two or three magistrates, or a
\ndistrict judge. There is no jury in a magistrates\u2019 court. Most cases they
\nhandle include summary offences that include motoring offenses, minor criminal damage,
\nand common assault that does not involve significant injury to the victim. At
\ntimes, it handles more serious cases such as burglary and drug offenses, but
\nthese cases are also heard in the Crown court. The Crown court receives more
\nserious cases that pass the Magistrates\u2019 courts: these \u2018indictable crimes\u2019
\ninclude murder, rape, and robbery. (GOV.UK, 2018) Additionally, the
\nCrown courts hears appeals against the magistrates\u2019 decision to convict or the
\nsentence. The magistrates\u2019 court tends to decide if the accused should be kept
\nin custody until the Crown court hearing, or if eligible to bail. They also
\npass cases to the Crown court, if they believe that further trial or extended
\nsentencing is necessary. Unlike, the Magistrates\u2019 court, the Crown court has a
\njury that decides to whether one is guilty or not. The judge, based on the
\njury\u2019s decision, decides the appropriate sentencing. A Crown court has the
\npower to give a variety of sentences that range from community sentences to
\nprison sentences that include life sentences. Given that the minimum conviction age is 10 in England, they are
\nincluding in the data. In England, the eyes of the law consider adulthood to
\nbegin at the age of 18. (GOV.UK, 2018)<\/p>\nData<\/h3>\n
\nof crimes never actually go through the criminal process that starts with
\narrest and ends in trial and conviction. The Crime Survey for England and Wales
\n(CSEW) provides data on the measure over time of crimes experienced. In 2017 (with the year ending in June) CSEW
\nestimated an occurrence of 5.8 million incidents of crime. (Statistics,
\n 2018)\n<\/p>\n
\n80,090 cases in 2017 to 2018 in the Crown Court; the magistrates prosecuted
\n453,071 cases. (Service, 2018) Most of these cases
\ntend to be complex, however, most suspects appear briefly before Magistrates
\nwho accept guilty pleas. Together, the Crown and Magistrates\u2019 courts had 84.1%
\nof the defendants prosecuted found guilty or pleaded guilty (Service,
\n 2018).
\n77% of those defendants pleaded guilty. (Service, 2018) Such statistics tend
\nto belie that popular notion that the criminal process starts with an arrest,
\nleads to a trial, and ends with a conviction. <\/p>\n
\nEngland and Wales remains adversarial, but inquisitorial principles have been
\nimplemented, such principles include the reliance on expert witnesses and
\nforensic evidence during the investigation and trials. The Criminal Justice and
\nPublic Order Act of 1994 lead to this inquisitorial addition, in which
\npenalties are allowed if the accused does not actively participate by answering
\npolice questions and testifies in trial. (Archives, 1994) <\/p>\n
\nJustice Act of 2003, provide, \u201ca fair balance between rights of the prosecution
\nand defense.\u201d (Archive, 2018) Yet, other acts such
\nas section 54 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and
\nPart 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have increased prosecutorial rights of
\nappeal. CPIA includes a provision that deals with \u201ctainted acquittals\u201d (National
\n Archive, 1996),
\nwhile the latter removes double jeopardy for the accused. (Archive, 2018)<\/p>\n
\nand more we didn\u2019t consider have modified investigation, pretrial, and trial
\nprocesses in recent years. This has had a firm trend against individual
\nprotection, which has had political push.<\/p>\nRecommendations<\/h2>\n
\nlead to wrongful convictions, including forensic error, police misconduct,
\neyewitness misidentification, and prosecutorial misconduct. Wrongful convictions
\nare a serious issue that is often unseen. Legal systems have a responsibility
\nto deliver fair judgements and discover the truth. With increasing technology,
\nevidence has become more crucial to the criminal justice system. However,
\nevidence can be misused in trial by the prosecution. There is the notion that
\nwrongful convictions are a bigger problem in adversarial systems There is a
\nneed to change the way adversarial systems manage trials and end the
\ncompetition-oriented court systems. These systems focus on a \u2018win\u2019 (obtaining
\nconvictions) rather than the discovery of truth. Prosecutors and police
\nofficers\u2019 goal and function is to search for the truth, catch the guilty, and
\nprotect the innocent. My hypothesis rested in the assumption that the jury trial
\n(in the adversarial system) contributes to wrongful convictions. This can be
\ndue to inherent features that lead to errors or the inefficiency of identifying
\nerrors that appear during the investigation and trial. Of course, it is often
\nrecommended to improve the training of prosecutors (and defenders that are
\nassigned by the state) and monitoring them. Additionally, other solutions
\nconsidered have been the improvement of interrogation procedures and
\naccreditation of laboratories that handle evidence. However, the issue lies in
\nthe structure of the adversarial system. My concern is not only the social
\nconstruct of the issue but a concern over the public policy. <\/p>\nBibliography<\/h2>\n
\n