For the past two decades, “The Innocence Project” with the help of updated science methods have worked relentlessly to get innocent people out of prison. Through DNA testing, they have been able to find new evidence that have freed hundreds of prisoners who were wrongfully convicted. Other factors such as eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, government misconduct, and inadequate defense also played keys roles in the wrongful convictions. The case that I would I would like to highlight today is that of, Johnnie Lindsey. Johnnie Lindsey was a 30-year old laundry worker who was falsely accused of rape.
DNA can be used as evidence to charge and imprison people. There are many pros to forensic dna like solving crimes and finding criminals. But Forensic dna also has many cons too like how dna can be tampered with and can falsely incriminate innocent people. Dna being used to throw the track off of criminals and nowadays be used to forge another person’s fingerprint on to a weapon of a sort and left behind to falsely accuse an innocent person so now Dna is not reliable all the time. Dna that has been planted onto a crime scene will incriminate innocent people and this will result in the falsely accusing/charging of innocent people for a sentence and charge they did not do and should not have to serve time for.
Wrongful convictions have plagued the world throughout history. When crimes are committed the public feels ascertain a way about the situation. Depending on the severity of the issues, the last thing the public wants is for the criminals to get away. The pressure intensifies to catch some one for the crime. The technology advancements alone have led to several cold cases freeing the wrongfully convicted.
The media tends to focus on the mistakes of the criminal justice system. Many reports have highlighted the cases of wrongfully imprisoned people. While these cases are indeed wrong, many of the people imprisoned have committed a crime. For example, DNA evidence is now a useful determinant of guilt or innocence with regard to rape cases. Gwendolyn Carrol wrote an article for the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
The results matched a man incarcerated for another murder” (“Darryl Hunt” n. pag.). The Justice System only looked at the DNA after the lawyer’s pleas, which proves that they were not actively looking to prove/disprove Hunt’s guilt. He was already convicted, and the people were worried that they would find
Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people get locked up for crimes they did not commit. Unfortunately, a handful of people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. Imagine being the accused and knowing damn right that you are innocent and trying your hardest to show the law your innocence yet losing the battle. Sometimes, you're innocence is proven or at least believed by a jury. Other times it takes investigations by institutions like the Innocence Project to prove your innocence.
Ever since the role of genetics in crime was accepted (Joseph,2001), several questions have been raised regarding the validity of this theory and whether a person can really be excused from committing a crime, no matter how heinous it is, just because (s)he possesses a gene that causes him (or her) to go down the road of crime? And can the crime in this world actually be curbed by curbing the reproductive abilities of those possessing the “criminal gene”?
On the one hand, if one juror wants to ensure that he never makes a mistake by letting a guilty person go free, then that juror must always vote guilty. His reasoning may be that the police do not arrest innocent persons. With this reasoning, there is no need for a trial because everyone arrested will be convicted by this type of juror. On the other hand, if another juror wants to ensure that she never makes a mistake by sending an innocent person to jail, then that juror must always vote not guilty. With this reasoning, there is no need for a trial because everyone arrested will be set free by this type of juror.
If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial. Since his confession could not be used, Miranda was not convicted. These, although very different, cases both support that due process holds the upmost importance in
The defendant was charged with two offenses of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of offenses against the person act and assaut. He denied the charges claiming that the sexual intercourse had been consensual. The judge ruled that it was open to the jury to convict the defendant and that whether or not the complainant had known of the defendant condition any consent between them was irrelevant and provided no defence. The defendant chose not to give evidence and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to sexual intercourse was not left to the jury. The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition.