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.