INTRO
There has been 7 public inquires held by the provinces in the last 20 years that have examined wrongful convictions
The justice system is organized with many rules and procedures that make it supposedly difficult for a wrongful conviction to occur
-recognition of the falibiulity of the Canadian criminal justice system
-serious implication
-trust in the justice system erodes and innocent people suffer.
Commission names
The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution
The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin
The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow
The Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of the Trial and Conviction of James Driskell
The Lamer Commission of Inquiry Pertaining to the Cases of: Ronald Dalton,
…show more content…
-vagueness of what constitutes a wrongful conviction (Roach,2012)
-additionally, cannot simply produce a numeric representation of wrongful convictions because when wrongful convictions occur they usually remain unnoticed for various reasons.
-many accused to plead guilty in court. Those that decide to plead guilty might actually be in fact innocent.
-in some scenarios the accused faces lengthy sentences if they proceed with trial and are found to be guilty.
-Consequently, defendants usually plead guilty to receive incentives from the prosecution. Incentives a defendant may receive from the prosecution might be a reduced sentence or early parole.
-additionally, some accused realize despite their factual innocence the prosecution has a strong case against them with many ill-informed witnesses, police documents, and other evidence.
Prosecution has vast resources from the state. Whereas, accused has limited resources.
-realizing that the chances of receiving a not guilty verdict is nearly impossible despite being innocent the accused pleads
…show more content…
-Anthony an Ontario man was convicted for the assault of a teenage girl.
-however, Anthony did not commit the crime. Despite not committing the crime Anthony plead guilty.
-Anthony was given a plead bargind by the crown. The plead bargain Anthony received was that if he confessed a plead guilty he would serve two years less a day in a provincial jail. Under the advice of his lawyer Anthony plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.
-years later in the Ontario court of appeals Anthony was exonerated.
-the infamous Scarborough rapist Paul Bernardo and confessed to the
Throughout the court of Canada there has been many records of wrongfully convictions that have occured. Today we still investigate those cases and why this lead for an wrongful act. Thomas Sophonow, David Milgaard, and James Driskell are three of the many that were wrongfully convicted. They were all imprisoned for murder and served jail time for 5 or more years.
Though the prosecution also closes the deal by agreeing to a plea deal which results in not be able to charge the criminal with several
and make sure other similar cases don’t happen in the future. Dealing with the wrongfully convicted is the first topic that is suggested within the commission, what is suggested is an independent review mechanism that would need to be put into place by the Attorney General. This means that this mechanism would be for the purpose of providing those who claim that they have been wrongfully convicted or those who have information on a case that had a potential wrongful conviction a place to approach with their concerns. The next top of suggests involves minorities and the criminal justice system, it is proposed by the commission that the Department of Attorney General publish a Policy on Race Relations to ensure that minorities are being better represented at all levels of the Canadian criminal justice system, it is also committed to the elimination of any inequalities of race within the system. An Alternative Penalty act is also proposed meaning that individuals will not be forced to serve time simply because they are financially unable to pay for a because of poverty.
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining
In our country, the judicial system, being fair and powerful is still very slow. It has always been very crowded. Since the courts are over crowded, prosecutor’s case-loads are over loaded and defendants wants to save time and money, as the result of which an informal and easy way of pre-trail bargaining came into play. Its is known as Plea-Bargaining. Plea Bargaining is defined as the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant, whereby the defendant agrees to his or her guilt of crime that has been committed in return for some concession from the prosecutor.
Furthermore, University of Ottowa criminologist Cheryl Webster has described Canada’s approach to conviction
The second type is called sentence bargaining. Sentence bargaining involves the prosecutor recommending leniency during the sentencing stage. For example, Craig pleads guilty to a misdemeanor petty theft. The prosecutor would likely recommend no jail time for the defendant. (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012)
Positive Side Plea bargaining has many affirmative factors that gives the defendant
A “Plea bargain” is an agreement between the prosecutor, the defendant’s attorney and the defendant. In return for the defendant entering a plea of guilty to a criminal charge, the prosecutor agrees to recommend to the judge a particular penalty. Plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial. The prosecution is relieved of the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and the defendant receives a specific resolution of the charges against him.
Since the stakes are so high in these cases, there is a high burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond
There are many reasons for wrongful convictions, in the cases of Ronald Cotton, Christopher Abernathy, and Marvin Anderson, the main evidence that led up to their convictions were eyewitness testimonies. It is sad that people waste so many years of their lives due to false misconstrued information. Therefore, eyewitness testimonies should not be sufficient evidence to make a case. Fortunately, there have been innocent people exonerated and released from prison thanks to DNA testing. People should be cautious when making an eyewitness testimony, they should make sure that they are 100% sure that they are picking the right person.
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong In Brandon L. Garrett 's book, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, he makes it very clear how wrongful convictions occur and how these people have spent many years in prison for crimes they never committed. Garrett presents 250 cases of innocent people who were convicted wrongfully because the prosecutors opposed testing the DNA of those convicted. Garrett provided simple statistics such as graphs, percentages, and charts to help the reader understand just how great of an impact this was.
People plead guilty for crimes that are not committed by them to avoid trial, but by doing so the right decision wasn’t made.
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.
Some people also argue that imposing strict liability will more likely lead to people exercising more caution and, as such act as deterrent to others. Essentially though, strict liability is seen as important as it ensures that more convictions are secured. In addition, it effectively holds people liable by eliminating false accounts aimed at justifying one’s state of minds. (Cynthia J. Curry et al., 1997) Considerations of whether is right for the defendant to be convicted without a blameworthy state of