Guilty Until Proved Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy (From Criminal Justice in America: Theory, Practice, and Policy, P 213-225, 1996, Barry W Hancock and Paul M Sharp, eds. - - See NCJ-160206)

• NCJ Number: 160219
• Author(s): C R Huff; A Rattner; E Sagarin
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: Prentice-Hall, Inc
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This study examines the frequency of wrongful convictions, the major causes of error in such cases, and policy implications.

Abstract

For the purposes of this study, "wrongful conviction" includes only those cases in which a person is convicted of a felony but later is found to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, generally due to a confession by the actual offender, evidence that had been available but was not sufficiently used at the time of conviction, new evidence that was not previously available, and other factors. Although there is no known method of determining exactly how many wrongful convictions occur each year, this study's literature review, a survey, the authors' own primary database of nearly 500 wrongful conviction cases, and the authors' analysis of the dynamics of wrongful conviction lead them to conclude that a conservative estimate of wrongful convictions is less than 1 percent; thus, for every 200 persons convicted of felonies in the United States, one or two of them will be innocent. Reasons for wrongful convictions include eyewitness error; errors and/or unprofessional conduct by police and prosecutors; and plea bargaining, which encourages even innocent persons to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the possibility of a severe punishment. Other factors that contribute to wrongful convictions are community pressure for a conviction; inadequacy of defense counsel; false accusations; the existence of a previous criminal record; judicial errors; and errors by investigators, criminalists, medical examiners, and forensic science experts. The authors found that the further a case progresses in the system, the less chance there is that an error will be discovered and corrected, unless it involves a basic issue of constitutional rights and due process. The authors suggest that compensation for those wrongfully convicted should be increased to reflect the financial and social harm actually done to them. Some examples of wrongful convictions are provided. 21 references, discussion questions, and suggested student applications of the chapter material