Wrongful Convictions vs State Laws

Locard's Exchange Principle

Even with the continuous research on wrongful convictions and the increasing number of exonerations, some states have failed to change their legislature on the preservation of evidence. The act of preserving evidence is vital in exonerating an innocent person.

According to The Innocence Project, not all states have laws that require preservation of evidence after conviction. The states that do have this legislation, however, have not dealt with the limitations of their laws. For example, some states have a specific time frame in which evidence should be preserved. After that time has passed, the evidence is allowed to be destroyed. Other states limit the evidence that can be preserved according to the type of crime that was committed. It seems that these states are more worried about storage space than upholding justice. Think of how many innocent people are in prison right now just because the evidence to prove their innocence was not preserved. It is unfathomable.

Surprisingly, the federal government introduced an incentive in favor of evidence preservation. In 2004, the Justice for All Act was passed by Congress. The law provides financial support to states that preserve evidence, and withholds money from states that do not preserve it adequately. However, The Innocence Project has found that in some cases evidence has not been preserved in states that do require evidence preservation. How are we supposed to trust our state governments if they are unwilling to help potentially innocent people?

There are a few solutions proposed by the Innocence Project, which involve amendments to current legislation. One amendment could be preserving and keeping evidence from the time an individual is convicted until the petition is made to prove their innocence. Another amendment is to allow for a new trial if evidence was destroyed. If the jury finds that the destruction of evidence was intentional, then they can presume that DNA testing of the evidence would have been exculpatory.

Study on Stigmatization of the Wrongfully Accused

A recent peer-reviewed paper related to wrongful convictions is titled, “Stigma and wrongful conviction: all exonerees are not perceived equal.” It was published this year in the Psychology, Crime & Law journal and written by Kimberley A. Clow and Amy-May Leach. The paper describes the study on how exonerees are perceived differently based on their conviction.

The study had four conditions in which participants were randomly assigned, three experimental and one control. In the experimental conditions, participants read a fake newspaper article about an individual’s exoneration after spending 10 years in prison. These articles mentioned how the individual was convicted due to either a false confession, eyewitness error, or an informant. The control participants read no article.

After reading the articles, participants had to answer a questionnaire, which asked about their perceptions of the individual in terms of competence, warmth, aggression, and innocence. In addition, participants had to answer questions about their emotional reactions to the individual, and if they believed the exoneree should receive government assistance. Other questions were more open ended and asked participants how and why they believe wrongful convictions occurred.

Overall, the findings showed that the exoneree who falsely confessed was perceived more negatively than other exonerees. For example, participants rated the false confession exoneree as less competent and warm, someone who should not receive government assistance. In addition, three out of the eighty-five participants in the experimental conditions believed the individual was guilty because of the false confession. However, instead of expressing anger towards the individual who falsely confessed, participants felt more pity.

The study proves that exonerees have to deal with stigmatization once they are released from prison, and that the level of stigma depends on how they were convicted. It is important to be aware of this stigma in order to stop it. Some people may not understand why a person would give a false confession but at the same time, they do not know about the conditions in which the person was in either. Maybe the exoneree was under stress during the investigation caused by the police just trying to find out the truth. Stopping this stigma can in part relieve exonerees from the difficulties of adjusting to life after prison.

Here is the link if you would like to read the article.

Reference

Clow, K. A. & Leach, A. (2014). Stigma and wrongful conviction: All exonerees are not perceived equal. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21 (2), 172-185. 

Dr. Robert J. Ramsey: Wrongful Conviction Scholar

One of the author names that came up frequently during my research is Robert J. Ramsey. In 1989, he graduated from Miami University with a B.S. in Political Science. He later earned his Master’s degree and Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati. Currently, Dr. Ramsey is an Associate Professor and the director of the Criminal Justice Program at Indiana University East.

In recent years, Dr. Ramsey has contributed to wrongful conviction scholarship by publishing peer reviewed articles either on his own or with a colleague. For my literature review, I read one of his articles titled “Perceptions of Criminal Justice Professionals Regarding the Frequency of Wrongful Conviction and the Extent of System Error” (1). The study describes how criminal justice workers acknowledge errors within the system, and that their perceptions vary depending on their roles (police officer, prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge). For example, defense attorneys believed that errors occurred more frequently than prosecutors. In addition, the study asked professionals about wrongful convictions and to make estimations of its frequency. It was found that workers believed wrongful convictions occurred more often now than in the past. Although Dr. Ramsey’s study was a replication of previous research, it provided current information on the extent to which criminal justice workers believed wrongful convictions and system errors occurred.

Other studies conducted by Dr. Ramsey have focused on wrongful convictions and how to reduce them. However, I believe he still has many more works to publish in the future considering his first publication was only in 2005. The reason why I chose to present Dr. Ramsey as a current wrongful conviction scholar was because the study that I mentioned above has already been replicated by his fellow peers (2). You know you have made an impact in your field once you find out others have taken an interest in what you have accomplished!

Do you know of any up and coming scholars in your field? Let me know in the comments below!

Links/References

Dr. Ramsey's Faculty Profile

1. Ramsey, R. J. & Frank, J. (2007). Wrongful conviction: Perceptions of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime & Delinquency, 53 (3), 436-470.

2. Smith, B., Zalman, M. & Kiger, A. (2011). How justice system officials view wrongful convictions. Crime & Delinquency, 57 (5), 663-681.

Scandal in the FBI Lab

Speak of the devil!

A recent article in The Washington Post, written by Stephen S. Hsu and titled “FBI Admits Flaws in Hair Analysis over Decades,” revealed that examiners in the FBI’s microscopic hair comparison unit have been giving flawed forensic testimony in court since the 1970’s. The article reports that 26 out of 28 examiners in the unit were the “expert” witnesses who backed their claims by referencing incomplete or misleading statistics in their work.

A hair match

The organizations assisting the Justice Department and the FBI with the review are the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Of the 2,500 cases involving hair matches, only 268 have been reviewed since 2012, and 95% of those cases had flawed testimony in favor of the prosecution. In 32 cases, the defendants were sentenced to death and 14 have already been executed or died in prison. According to Brandon L. Garrett, one of the authors of peer-reviewed articles I have researched, the results of the review so far indicate a “mass disaster” within the criminal justice system.

This news exemplifies the issue of wrongful convictions and how it can be caused by faulty forensic science. The FBI admitting their error is the first step in the right direction. People must take the blame for their actions and be punished accordingly for any individual wrongfully accused due to the inaccurate hair matches. The FBI laboratory and other agencies should also change the way hair analysis is conducted and regulated. No agency likes wasting time reviewing past cases due to mistakes of their employees. More research must be done to conclude that hair can be a reliable source of evidence.

It is sad to know that 14 people have died due to the flawed testimony. They could have been given another chance at an appeal, but instead they have lost their lives. Hopefully the number of deaths does not increase considering this is only the beginning of the “largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

            What are your thoughts on the recent news?

Washington Post article - April 18, 2015

Wrongful Convictions 101

You might be asking yourself, why make a blog about wrongful convictions? My answer is to inform the public about an issue that has come to light in recent years, and continue to increase awareness to push for reform of the criminal justice system. Currently, studies estimate that there might be up to 400,000 innocent people in prison (2). It makes you reevaluate your trust in the system, doesn’t it? Well, this post in particular will provide a little more information on the topic and give some insight behind the causes and effects of wrongful convictions.

When a person spends time in prison for a crime they did not commit, sometimes the damage is irreparable. In a study of 55 exonerated men, 22% of them stated that they suffered from personality changes, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or a combination of them (3). The percentage might seem low, but that could be because some men do not openly express their emotions, especially after a traumatic experience. The same study also covered the different coping mechanisms the innocent men used in prison. These acts included joining gangs to have a sense of belonging or staying isolated to keep their sanity. However, the most difficult time the wrongfully accused will have in their life is adjusting to society once they are released. For example, they have trouble finding a job because of gaps in their work history or no work skills at all. Other issues include lack of social skills, understanding new technology, and depending on family members. All of these problems contribute to how exonerees prefer to be alone than to be humiliated in public or communicate with others.

But let me back up for a moment. What is an exoneree?

An exoneree is a person who was wrongfully accused of a crime, but later acquitted due to new evidence presented in court. How did they end up in prison in the first place? According to a study of 194 exonerations, 75% of the cases had false eyewitness testimony, 45% had invalid expert testimony, 30% had false confessions, and 22% had deceitful informants (1). These statistics prove that the number of wrongful convictions must be reduced, and should start by reforming procedures within the criminal justice system.

Thank you for reading! Please feel free to add any of your thoughts in the comments below.

References

1. Hampikian, G., West, E., & Akselrod, O. (2011). The genetics of innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA exonerations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12, 97-120.

2. Ramsey, R. J. & Frank, J. (2007). Wrongful conviction: Perceptions of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime & Delinquency, 53 (3), 436-470. 

3. Wildeman, J., Costelloe, M. & Schehr, R. (2011).Experiencing wrongful and unlawful conviction. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50 (7), 411 – 432.