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.