Wrongful convictions are one of the most worrisome and tragic downsides to the Canadian Criminal Justice System. As stated by Campbell & Denov (2016). “cases of wrongful convictions in Canada call into question the ability of our criminal justice system to distinguish between the guilty and innocence” (p. 226). In addition, wrongful convictions can have devastating repercussions on the person, who was found guilty, effecting their personal/public identities, beliefs and family lives. This essay will be examine some of the common factors that apply to the conviction of an innocence person. Also, whether the CJS is doing enough to inhibit wrongful convictions and finally, the problems that parole can cause for a person maintaining their innocence. To begin, in …show more content…
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227). All of these components lead to eyewitness error and essentially false incrimination. Secondly, another factor that can contribute to wrongful conviction is the use of jailhouse informants. Campbell & Denov (2016), describe jailhouse informants as prisoner informants that “provide information to law enforcement officials in exchange for money, property, or the promise of leniency in sentencing” (p. 229). This can be problematic because jurors place value on the
In “Memory in Canadian Courts of Law” Elizabeth Loftus focuses on the testimonials of suspects based on victims or eyewitnesses memories to explain the issues that memories can cause in legal cases as it can result in false accusations and wrongful convictions. As a psychologist Loftus believes that false eyewitness memories are the major cause of wrongful convictions and that these “dubious” memories from witnesses can lead to innocent lives to be suffered. Loftus is informing readers there is a heavy reliance on memory and eyewitness testimony in the court system and it’s not valid methods of evidence. She wants readers to understand that it is unethical for jurors to use these methods to convict a suspect. Loftus’s article is sifted
“On July 30, 1992, an innocent person was convicted of a heinous crime”. Guy Paul Morin, an ordinary man, was arrested, imprisoned and convicted of first degree murder. The victim was Christine Jessop, a nine-year-old girl from Ontario, Canada. She was found murdered in a field about fifty kilometres from where she lived. Due to the investigation team’s carelessness and tunnel vision, the systematic failure of the justice system, and the poor handling of evidence by the crown there was not only one, but two victims in this case.
Manufacturing Guilt Wrongful Convictions in Canada, follows the theme of the first edition where the authors demonstrate what leads to wrongful conviction. We all know that innocent mistakes happen however, wrongful convictions are usually the result of deliberate actions of those working in the criminal justice system and not unintended errors. By using Canadian cases as miscarriages of justice, the authors argues that understanding wrongful convictions and how to prevent them is incomplete outside the broader societal context in which they occur, particularly regarding racial and social inequality. This book also analyzes how forensic science is used as a resource for prosecutors rather than seeking the truth. What is miscarriage of justice?
It is unlikely that social consequences of false memories can be avoided. Elizabeth Loftus was intrigued to study false memories, and is perhaps personally responsible for subsequent developments throughout the history of false memories. Some of this history addresses various theories aimed at isolating how or why false memories occur. These include Source Monitoring Framework, Activation Monitoring Theory, Fuzzy Trace Theory, and strategies for persuasion which can lead to the development of false memory. Such persuasion leads to the present discussion concerning how persuasion in the judicial system has created false confessions and wrongful eyewitness testimonies, due to the Misinformation Effect.
The five factors associated with wrongful convictions are as follows, adversarial process, eyewitness identification, forensic evidence misconduct/ error, interrogation and confessions, and informants/ jailhouse snitches. The adversarial process relies on the skills and resources of the defense and prosecution. Eyewitness identification includes evidence from a witness who has seen the event and can pick out a perpetrator. Forensic evidence misconduct/ error involves forensic evidence that has been collected poorly or handled wrong down the line and tampered. Interrogation and confessions have exonerated about 20% of the wrongful convictions cases, but with this can lead to false confessions.
There has been extensive research conducted on both estimator and system variables and how they specifically relate to the witnessing of a crime. Estimator variables represent sources of eyewitness error that are beyond the control of the criminal justice system. They typically happen during or following the crime before investigators are able to arrive on the scene. This represents the basic way humans perceive things and remember them and their overall influence can only be estimated. On the other hand, system variables are controlled by people within the criminal justice system when collecting information from eyewitnesses.
In closing, both discredited eyewitnesses and jurors can determine and outcome of a trial, resulting in a life changing decision for the person that is accused. Many studies have supported that jurors will vote in a higher rating of guilty when an eye witness is present even if they are discredited. Though it is less in terms of an unrefuted eyewitness in comparison to a discredited eyewitness as our study
In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime.
Researchers stated that 1 out of 4 individuals are wrongfully convicted because they feel that complying with a police officer by saying they admitted to the crime would be more beneficial then continuing to prove their innocence. Fear of violence, mental impairment, ignorance of the law, intoxication, and the threat of a harsh sentence are some factors that lead to false confession during a police interrogation. Confessions obtained by juveniles are often untrustworthy because children can be easily influence by an officer, which they are not aware of their situation and consequence. Many law enforcement officers are not fully trained to interrogate suspects with mental disabilities because some mentally capable adults can give false confessions
There have been numerous cases where false conviction has ruined someone’s life. This too, happened to Tammy Marquardt (Wynne), a middle-aged woman currently 43, who had lost all three of her sons during her early twenties due to the false charges of smothering and murder that imprisoned her. It changed her life completely. She would have never expected to go from being a regular single mom to being a criminal, but she did. This is her story.
Research has consistently shown that people are not accomplished at judging truth and deception, generally performing at no better than chance level (Meissner & Kassin, 2002). Police and layperson accuracy and confidence are exceedingly important since many criminal offenders engage in high levels of manipulation and deception (Porter et al., 2000). Generally in psychology research we are asking participants to respond to a question then to rate the confidence of their response. In legal psychology research, many times comparisons are drawn between police and layperson samples. A recent overview of literature suggests that most police samples as a whole rate their confidence as high when they actually have similar or lower accuracy then layperson
With millions of criminal convictions a year, more than two million people may end up behind bars(Gross). According to Samuel Gross reporter for The Washington Post, writes that also “even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic [wrongful conviction] errors”(Gross). Citizens who are wrongfully convicted are incarcerated for a crime he or she did not commit. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges are responsible for the verdict that puts innocents into prison. To be able to get exonerated many wait over a decade just to get there case looked at, not many are able to have the opportunity of getting out.
Luckily, it is known what causes wrongful convictions and how to fix them. Many wrongful convictions are due to mistaken eyewitnesses, jailhouse snitches, or false evidence. I think many of the wrongful convictions could be solved with harder evidence, more information. A case should not rely on a single eye witness but multiple.
In this study, the term confession will include not only confessions of crime by criminals, but false confessions by those who could be innocent. Extensive data in academic journals and notable literature
This clearly sows that the memory is an active process and is expected to alter an opinion based on understanding society (Simple Psychology, 2014) . Eyewitness testimony is unethical as the evidence that is supplied can be provided by someone with stress or anxiety issues this can assist by distraught the image of the suspect. Wrongfully sending an innocent individual to prison. Bloods worth’s case displays it is unethical as there was no psychical evidence nor appearance matched that supported Bloodsworth was responsible for the murder and rape of the victim. Three eyewitnesses were able to identify the perpetrator out of the five and this was based from evidence that he was spotted with the young girl hours earlier before the crime was