Scott Fraser Pros And Cons

There have been many studies looking at wrongful conviction cases, and along with that, there have been thousands of empirical studies done on the traditional causes of it (Leo, 2009, pg, 29). These include eye witness testimony and false confessions induced by police (Leo, 2009, p.29). This paper will look at the research done on those who have been wrongfully convicted and the psychological effects that it has had on them. I will discuss several psychological processes that can lead to wrongful convictions in court. I will then look at the various psychological effects including mental and physical health issues. Along with discussing some aspects of the stigmatization exonerees receive when returning home after being released that may contribute to their personal psychological effects.

During recent studies from several researchers it has been concluded that there is a fault within our criminal justice system. Researchers discovered there is a high wrongful conviction rate within the United States judicial system. After, extensive research, it was found that wrongful convictions are caused by eyewitness error, false confessions, flawed forensic science, an informant, bad lawyering, and government misconduct. Without a doubt, this issue has shocked society, due to the fact we rely on the system for pure justice. Within my findings, it is apparent that victims of wrongful convictions suffer numerous affects when

After Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped in 1984, she identified a man in a police lineup and in court as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming that she had chosen the suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the suspect, Ronald Cotton, had been wrongfully convicted of the rape. A man named Bobby Poole, who Thompson testified she had never seen before, was the man who actually raped her. Ronald and Jennifer's book, picking cotton, portrays common factors that contribute to erroneous convictions. Although it addresses a variety of important issues, the most crucial is how subtle factors like eyewitness misidentification, confirmation bias and nature of a defendant can

Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)

Before the experiment was conducted previous research was studied to ensure consecutive results throughout their own trials. This research revealed that most of the sociological world has ignored the issue of exoneration and when the criminology section was reviewed, little interest was shown on the topic. The few studies found in the criminology section shared some of the same findings as later expressed in the article. Mainly that wrongful convictions are due mostly to faulty eyewitness’s testimony, perjury and if the person was convicted of a prior crime. However, no literature that focused on sociological variables including race,

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

One hundred and sixty-six exonerations took place in 2016, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, setting a new record (“Exonerations 2016” 3). Indeed, misconvictions are now seen as part of the normal judicial process(“Exonerations 2016” 17). However, why are there so many mistakes in convicting individuals? One of the largest causes may be biases within the courts. Implicit bias in the American judicial system may seriously impact the underprivileged in receiving impartial verdicts in the legal system and access to quality lawyers.

It has been reported that millions of crimes is committed in the United States of America which violates and harms the individual rights, properties, and freedoms that are not only guaranteed to American citizens of this country. It has been highlighted that justice is dealt with according to the crimes committed based on the findings and principles of our country, which derived from the Constitution of the United States. While it has been argued justice may not always be fair due to certain rights given to those who may be charged with crime sometimes an error is made. A simple mistake, a missing or broken link in the chain that represents the investigation and trial processes causes an innocent bystander to become caught up in an investigation. More importantly, in many cases can result in a wrongful conviction. This error can rise from many forms like a mistaken eyewitness identification, a false confession, misconduct of the governing authorities, improper forensic investigation, or including staff that neglect to make efforts or unskilled litigation by the defense attorneys. Those whom are affected endure years in prison, deal with lost wages, isolation from friends and family, scrutiny from potential employers, and isolation from their community.

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

“No one loses their innocence. It is either taken away or given willingly” Tiffany Madison. A person’s innocence and freedom should be theirs to hold and control, but that is not always the way things unfold. Conviction flaws, poor evidence, and the social responses to these flaws are all involved and present in the cases of Paula Gray and Keith Allen Harward, as new evidence thirty years after they were imprisoned comes to light.

This article is about a sexual assault bill that is being considered and that according to supporters would prevent wrongful convictions. It would require victims to corroborate their testimony only if the defendant doesn’t have a prior conviction. Since this could be a very controversial issue a forensic psychologist could be hired to clarify the nature of the problem; to either prove that the bill could help prevent wrongful convictions by using logic and evidence or that it would make those cases where evidence simply doesn’t exist harder. A forensic psychologist could argue, for example, that victims are not always able of providing a reliable story; that it is possible for them to miss a prominent characteristic because it has happened

Wrongful convictions can be the result an assortment of conditions that contribute to injustice. Variables include the Brady violations, faulty forensics, weak defense, misleading prosecution, misidentification, lying, false confessions, race and financial resources of the defendant (Gould, J. et al. 2013). Seventy-five percent or more of erroneous convictions have involved mistaken eyewitness identification: (Garrett, 2009). False confessions of innocent people pleading guilty corrupt our system. Furthermore, it must be noted that the American judicial system relies heavily upon a plea-bargaining system, where some may plead guilty as opposed to taking their chances before a jury. States that have a reputation for punitive juries may

Eyewitnesses are critical to the criminal justice system, but there have been issues involving eyewitness testimonies, which occasionally cause them to be seen as unreliable. According to innocenceproject.org, 72% of DNA exoneration cases in the United States have resulted from eyewitness misidentification. This is concerning because in a study by Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2005), they examined jurors, judges and law enforcement’s knowledge about eyewitness issues. They found that those involved in the legal system are still very unaware of eyewitness memory research, and the reasons behind why eyewitnesses may or may not be considered reliable. There needs to be a way to increase reliability so that eyewitnesses are able to accurately recognize perpetrators and other important information to put the guilty people away, and to keep the innocent people free.

Since the development of DNA evidence, More than 300 people have been exonerated in the United states alone, since 1989 as a result of eyewitness misidentification (Hsu, cited in Wixted et al, 2015). Consequently, The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 to assist those individuals who have been wrongfully convicted. The organization claims that over 70% of overturned cases are the result of eyewitness misidentification (Innocenceproject.org, n.d.). Whilst this is American data, it illuminates the tragedy that can emanate from such an unreliable element of the justice system. This essay will argue that eyewitness identification

Since 1923, when Judge Learned Hand said that the American judicial system “has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,” the issue of wrongful conviction has been acknowledged to man (Halstead, 1992; Huff, Rattner, Sagarin, & MacNamara, 1986). After the judge made his innocuous statements, serious study of this phenomenon began. Contrary to the statement the judge made, time and technology have revealed that an unquantifiable number of wrongfully convicted persons have served prison terms and even been executed for crimes they did not commit and some that did not even occur. Research into wrongful conviction was virtually nonexistent until Professor Edward Brochard of Yale University published his book Convicting the Innocent in 1932. This book documented 65 such cases, addressed the legal causes of miscarriage, and offered suggestions to reform. Subsequently, numerous other researchers began conducting case studies and publishing findings that affirmed that wrongful conviction represents a systematic problem within the American judicial process (Huff, 2002).