In the article “ The CSI Effect: TV Crime Dramas’ Impact on Real Life Cases” by Madeline Anderson states “ People who regularly view such shows can come away with specific ideas about the reliability and integrity of forensic evidence.” This represents that these shows give the wrong impression to the viewers on forensic evidence. Anderson as well says “ These ideas may lead jurors to except to see more forensic evidence in trials or to weigh such evidence more heavily than they would otherwise.” This shows that everything in the TV shows related the crime dramas, evidence wise there is a limit for how much the evidence can do in the actually case or in the court. Anderson states that “ It can also create false sense of confidence when it comes to understanding such evidence..” This shows that due to what is shown on TV crime shows this impacts the viewers to believe that one little piece of evidence can do a lot when in reality in some cases it does not prove much at
Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard. If it was selective to only a certain group of people or the same twelve Jurors all the time the ending vote for guilty or not guilty would most likely be similar because they would bond through the other cases that they have done together. Which, is unfair for the rest of America if all
Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), 60 Minutes put out an interview piece about Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton and attempted to show how eyewitness testimony is flawed. Thompson was the victim and survivor of a rape and Cotton was the accused. Cotton served nearly 11 years before his exoneration, the eyewitness conviction deemed flawed. However, not flawed eyewitness testimony only convicted Cotton but the power of suggestion, finger pointing, and some unconscientious persuasion as well.
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king. The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the
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. For those in prison, those who snitch saying the defendant confessed, testifying can be a bargaining chip; the state will often reduce sentence time or
These wrongful convictions occur because the criminal justice system had many flaws. It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board. The prosecutors "opposed testing, arguing that it would make no difference" whether or not those being convicted got DNA tested (Garrett 1). Confessions was one of the causes that often led to the downfall of those innocently convicted. In the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, the police officer was supposed to conduct the polygraph examination. The detective for this case explained that he did not actually conduct the examination but only tested "Deskovic 's truthfulness" and to "get
Science has come a long way over the years. It has helped countless every day struggles and cure diseases most commonly found. What you don’t hear about however is the advancement of forensic science. Forensic science has helped solve countless cases of murder, rape, and sexual assault. In the case of John Joubert, it helped solve the murders of three young boys with one small piece of evidence that linked him directly to the crime.
However, with Texas and Illinois having the greatest amount of exonerations in the United States, according to data from the CBS News team (CBS News, 2014, para. 5), states the initial use of DNA was not held to standards or technology was advanced. DNA has impacted the exonerations in Texas and Illinois, among other states. According to the article Study of DNA data shows potential for wrongful convictions written in the Richmond Times, a study was conducted which shared the results of approximately 6 percent of people convicted in the past 15 years could be innocent as the result of DNA testing not being available at that time (Green, 2012, para. 1). This research is significant to the criminal justice system. Victims of violent crime deserve justice and convicting the wrong person is not only injustice for the victim, but for the one is being wrongfully convicted.
“the right to a speedy and public, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The case of Miranda versus the state of Arizona started out when Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The crime committed was an armed robbery, kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl. The victim was Lois Ann Jameson. The crime took place on March 3rd 1963 in Phoniex, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after the brother of the victim found Miranda’s trunk. He was arrested on March 13th 1963. After being arrested he was put in a lineup and was in a voice lineup and a postitive Identification was made. After being in the interegation room for two hours, Ernesto Miranda gave a full confession of his crime. He was not made aware of his rights to have an attorney present while he was making this confession,
We know that DNA testing is giving hope to the hopeless in prison. Margret Berger (2006) comments, “Even though the number of inmates released as a consequence of DNA testing is minuscule in contrast to the two million persons incarcerated in the United States, the DNA exonerations have had an enormous impact on the fundamental assumptions about the American criminal justice system and how it operates.” Changes like the desirability of the death penalty, the growing concerns on how forensic laboratories operate alongside the increasing interest in forensic science overall. For instance, as the number of exonerations continues to rise, the number of people being placed on death row is decreasing thanks to Supreme Court rulings that juveniles under the age of 18 and the mentally ill cannot be sentenced to death. The death penalty is overall losing its appeal to society, not just because of the DNA testing, but people become aware of the wrongful convictions of other crimes as well. While Bennett Barbour did not spend any time on death row, another wrongly convicted Nick Yarris had. Both Bennett and Nick had suffered due to forensic laboratories making a mistake when doing testing either through DNA being left out for too long, thrown away or in an off chance, tampered with to make a
In Randall’s article, she gives a few examples of individuals who have been wrongly convicted, in the first example she says “Kirk L. Odom was wrongfully imprisoned for more than 22 years for a 1981 rape and murder. He completed his prison term in 2003, but it was not until July 2012 that DNA evidence exonerated him of the crimes.” (Randall 1) Randall states the fact that Odom even finished his sentence before the FBI figured out he was innocent, but what good is that if 22 years of his life were taken from him. And a similar case happened, in 1978 Santae A. Tribble was convicted for murder and was not exonerated until 2012. The fact the FBI had the power to take away over 20 years of these men’s lives for something they did not do is ridiculous. This happened because of flawed DNA analysis and human error. Yes, mistakes are made, but there needs to be coherence and certainty if years are going to be taken away from
A jury trial is a privilege that we all have so that we are administered a fair and impartial trial; thus, it must be taken seriously. Depending on each state, when summoned for the jury selection process, and chosen to serve as members of the jury, we are required to take an oath or an affirmation. Additionally, the consideration of the circumstances that lead us to be a witness, should be prevalent in our minds. It is important that we listen to the entire case and determine if the offender, based on the facts given during the trial and not on personal biases, should be convicted. I think this is important because the future of one person is determined based on the testimony of the witnesses whom have sworn truthfulness. Nonetheless, I
What are the causes of wrongful convictions? Criminal law examines why there are many wrongful convictions and the causes to them. Theories has shown that wrongful convictions have revealed disturbing fissures and trends in the criminal justice system. Other theories indicates that an overlapping array of contributing factors has emerged; from mistakes to misconduct to factors of race and class. The state’s obligation to do more to correct wrongful convictions is in proportion to the rate at which they are currently allowed to occur. But our knowledge of the frequency of wrongful convictions is inevitably limited. The criminal standard of proof is demanding, but absolute certainty is unachievable and not required (Hammer 2014). Some risk of
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.