About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 Crim. Just. 15 (2003-2004)
Wrongful Conviction: Causes and Public Policy Issues

handle is hein.journals/cjust18 and id is 17 raw text is: WRONGFUL CONVICTION: CAUSES AND PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES By C. Ronald Huff uch has been made of recent cases in which inno- cent defendants have been released from long jail terms thanks to DNA evidence. Yet the biological evidence upon which DNA tests are performed is not avail- able in most cases, making proof of innocence much more challenging. Despite our justice system's elaborate criminal procedure-the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt-it is likely that thousands of innocent persons are convicted of serious crimes each year, with many subsequently deprived of their liberty for years before the error is uncovered-if ever. How extensive is this problem? What are its principal causes? Does the frequency of error vary across jurisdic- tions within one nation, such as the United States? Does the frequency of error vary across nations? If so, how much is that variation attributable to differences in types of justice systems (e.g., adversarial versus inquisitorial/continental)? How much variance is attributable to cultural differences, such as differing levels of tolerance for social injustice? Do societies vary in their tolerance for the conviction of the innocent as opposed to the acquittal of the guilty? Are such errors the inevitable cost of operating a system of criminal justice? What can be done to prevent or reduce wrongful conviction? How should we compensate the innocent per- sons who are convicted and, in many cases, incarcerated? Wrongful conviction in the United States In societies that value the freedom of their citizens and have done so much to protect that freedom, it is arguable that being convicted of a crime that one did not commit, and being incarcerated with criminals or even put to death, represents one of the worst nightmares imaginable. And yet, when we consider the two major types of errors--false positives and false negatives-we find much more preoccu- C. Ronald Huff, PR.D., is dean of the School of Social Ecology and professor in the Department of Criminolog)y Law and Society at the University of California, Itvine, He is a fellow and past- president (2000-2001) of The American Society of Criminology pation with the question of the guilty going free, probably because of the public safety implications of freeing a crimi- nal, who might then victimize others. The irony, of course, is that these two errors are inversely related, and every time we convict an innocent person we leave the actual offender free to continue victimizing citizens. Therefore, although the issue of wrongful conviction is generally portrayed as a so-called liberal issue focusing on the rights of the accused, it is every bit as much an issue that affects public safety and should be of equal concern to so-called law-and-order conservatives. How and why do such miscarriages of justice occur? A colleague and I examined this question in some detail uti- lizing an extensive survey in the State of Ohio and a national survey of attorneys general. In carrying out our research, we utilized a very conservative criterion in defin- ing wrongful conviction-that is, only those convicted of a felony and later officially cleared were included in our database. This criterion is so conservative that it excludes several important groups. From the viewpoint of injustice, the most significant of these groups consists of people who have been held before trial for lengthy periods of time before being cleared of the charges. Since they were not convicted, we do not include them, even though the sociobehavioral and system dynamics that produced their erroneous arrest and kept them confined for a long time prior to adjudication are generally parallel to the factors discussed below. We excluded from our definition those found not guilty in a second trial or on appeal because of the exclusion of crucial evidence due to illegal searches and seizures or other violations of suspects' rights. We do this because we believe there is an important distinction between being found not guilty by our legal system and actually being innocent. In many cases, one cannot infer actual innocence from subsequent acquittals or reversals. In our database, we include cases involving official acknowledgment of error based on the following criteria: (1) a new trial was permitted and the defendant was found not guilty; (2) a pardon was granted due to new evidence; ,Jstratiin: 1gors Irbe

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most