Summary to be provided by Ian
Wrongful Convictions: The American Experience
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/150
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/150
Every time I read about the wrongful convictions that occur far too often our society it angers me. I have no faith in the system and I do not know if I every really did. My knowledge of these important issues surrounding these atrocious violations of freedom and justice make it ever more difficult to maintain an objective focus rooted in scientific knowledge and wisdom via experimental research. Instead, my impulse is to curse the system and its agents of injustice, leaving me ever paranoid that all it would take is some guy with a beard robbing a gas station right after I left the place after buying a six pack, resulting in an unconscious transference in which the clerk identifies my bearded face and they throw me in concrete cell for years. These terrible hypothetical scenarios are enough to fill a person with rage. Yet, the rational side of me quells this anger driven beast, focusing instead on the ways in which we can make progress.
First, establishing credibility is crucial. Psychology is often not viewed as scientific from a lay perspective, but also from the viewpoint of those in the criminal justice system and those in the natural sciences. While this perception exists, we must endure, collecting empirical evidence rooted in sound methodology to create a place for psychology along side the “hard” sciences. The major problem is that while most people would not dare to discount the “proof” of DNA analysis, which can sometimes be used to exonerate those erroneously convicted of crimes they did not commit, they hold the same standard for eyewitness memory. If a person is especially certain that their memory is accurate (e.g., via confidence statements, visible emotional excitation during identification), then jurors tend to allow this memory evidence (which is largely intangible) the same credible status as DNA evidence. The problem with this perception is that while trust is given to scientists who analyze DNA evidence, producing significant results rooted in rigorous experimental methodology, the same confidence does not hold up when people are informed that scientists studying memory for various events under various conditions. Despite the use of experimentally rigorous methods and tests for significance of results, it appears that some people can not help but value the identifications made by witnesses or even worse, victim witnesses to criminal events. We still have a long way to go, yet due our ability to address these problems and work toward viable solutions, there is much work to be done, but also much progress to be made.
DP
Wrongful convictions are a huge issue in the criminal justice system. As a criminal justice and psychology double major in my undergraduate work, I found that a lot of attention was placed on why people commit crimes. However, not a lot of attention was focused on aspects of wrongful convictions. We did discuss the issue, but it seemed to me that more emphasis was placed on causes of crime. It is frustrating to know that many people are denied their freedom because they were wrongfully convicted for reasons such as misidentification or ineffective assistance of counsel.
I find it especially frustrating to read about police and prosecutors behaving in an unethical way. I understand that their job is to protect the public, but that should not come at the expense of an innocent person’s freedom. I believe one of the articles pointed out that around 63% of convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved unethical conduct by police or prosecutors. This figure alone is troubling, but the article also points out that prosecutors do not tend to be punished for knowingly allowing prejudicial evidence into trial. This fact is unacceptable, in my opinion. Prosecutors should be held responsible for their improper conduct in criminal cases when someone’s freedom is in jeopardy. The article also brings up the idea of inadmissible evidence, and that prosecutors tend to make statements that should not be admissible in court. These types of statements are very prejudicial for a defendant, since many jurors cannot disregard the information that they heard.
I also found the section that brought up issues relating to the death penalty very informative. This type of punishment is irreversible and regardless if a person is opposed or for the death penalty, the issue of innocence and wrongful convictions should be a concern for everyone.
HC
After reading the article by Huff, I am even more skeptical on trusting the current justice system. This article did an excellent job of explaining and helping readers understanding wrongful convictions and all of the aspects included in the process. I didn’t realize until reading this article the amount of wrongful convictions every year that happens in the United States alone. I was appalled to believe that no one is doing anything about this situation.
The article discusses factors including: eyewitness error, law enforcement officers and prosecutors who engage in misconduct, withholding evidence, false confessions, perjury, misleading lineups, snitches, forensic errors, incompetence, and fraud. No wonder why there are so many wrongful convictions in the United States. Obviously, there isn’t enough time or a budget for professionals to concentrate on all of these areas. However, this should also not be an excuse for them. I believe that either they find better ways in resolving these problem instead of just dealing with and ignoring the current situation.
The idea of the death penalty is shortly brought up in this article, which can be an article on its own. I agree with the former Illinois governor George Ryan when he speaks out about the death penalty. He even put a halt on the process of death penalty because more inmates have been exonerated than executed at one time. This is very scary because any of us or our families can be put in the situation of being falsely identified or even at the wrong place and time.
Overall, it is very evident that there needs to be further research and drastic changes in the process of conviction. This article provides an excellent overview of all the aspects of wrongful convictions and even some ideas to change the process for the better. Change is obviously going to be a difficult, lengthy and probably costly thing, but it needs to for the sake of everyone. The statement of, “For every wrongfully convicted person on death row there is a true killer who may still be on the streets,” really hit home for me and made me realize that something needs to be done about this problem. KC
Wrongfully convicted individuals experience devastating effects, leading to a damaged life due to the entire experience. Others who are wrongfully convicted experience prison time, or even the death penalty. It is estimated that 7,500 people in the United States are wrongfully convicted. Even though a majority of these people are not sentenced with the death penalty, some may be. This is upsetting as I can not imagine what that would be like, being sentenced for something you have not done. This causes me to question weather or not the death penalty should be used as a sentence in the US? I understand that some may “deserve” it, but what about those who are wrongfully receiving this sentence?
I am glad to see that the biological technology of DNA testing has been helping in proving many people innocent who would otherwise be sentenced wrongfully. And even though the technology is amazing, it is not without flaw. DNA evidence could be tampered with leading to misleading evidence.
It was disturbing to me to think that those who we put our trust in, the police, may be taking part in misconduct by mishandling evidence, and practicing other forms of unethical behaviors. This makes me question our criminal justice system, and the accuracy which it holds. But the most common cause of wrongful convictions is found to be due to eyewitness error. It was said that 84% of DNA exoneration's were, in part, due to a mistaken eyewitness identification.
Another interesting topic was that of “snitches”, using the testimony of cell mates. This inappropriate use of jailhouse inmates is neither ethical in my opinion nor reliable since many of those cellmates could be making up information in hopes of a lighter sentence or some other beneficial reason.
Overall, I have become more critical of our society’s justice system, and I hope to see more research done in this area as it is important to reduce the number of wrongful convictions.
SD, 2/24/09
I agree with you. I have become much more critical of the criminal justice system as I have become more involved in research. Even as a criminal justice major, I was very skeptical of what was happening in the system. My hope is that eventually policy recommendations can be made that will reduce wrongful convictions.
HC
The research done by Ronald Huff on wrongful convictions (2004) discusses the imperfections in our legal system that leads to this problem. Huff touched on eyewitness error, unethical conduct on the behalf of police and prosecutors, false confessions, improper interrogations, “snitches,” forensic errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Scheck et al. (2000), 84% of the DNA exonerations they looked at were the result of eyewitness identification. That rate is very frightening and should be a huge red flag for our justice system. Police should be looking closely at their procedures and courts should be careful when using witness identifications. It doesn’t give much other detail about the imperfections of eyewitness identification or ways to solve it. The article touches on how police and prosecutors engage in unethical behavior that results in wrongful convictions and how in 381 murder convictions that had been reversed, never have the police or prosecutors been disbarred. It was even known that the prosecutors or police had lied about testimony or concealed evidence that would help the defense. Also threatening or badgering with the witness and using false or misleading evidence was found to be infractions of police or prosecution by the Center for Public Integrity (2003). This behavior is absolutely unacceptable. There should be harsh punishment for anyone found to be committing such acts, especially in a court room. The thing I found most interesting about the article was when Huff talked about “snitches”. Jailhouse informants or “snitches,” communicate information to police, correctional officers, and prosecutors that may not be valid in return for favorable behavior. It is pretty obvious that this is not a very reliable way of gaining information because there are personal reasons why they would form stories and possibly lie to receive shorter sentences or perks in jails. This piece of testimony should be looked at with caution as well. The only way I would find this to be valuable is if the personal incentives were not available or the person was very trust worthy. The other thing that caught my interest was about crime labs. According to the article, crime labs are usually a part of law enforcement agencies. This is very biased because the defense does not typically have the money to spend on forensic testing nor does it have its own lab. This can lead to labs being biased and resulting in convicting defendants in order to please the prosecution. Overall the article was not that great, but it had some good things about it. I understand it is a hard topic to narrow in on because it has so many different reasons why it occurs.