Types of Exonerations

In addition to undeserved charges, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people for crimes in which they were convicted over the past few years. When DNA testing became readily available to the criminal justice system, crucial flaws began to surface. It was realized that people were serving hard-time for felony crimes they didn’t commit.

In effect, people are unknowingly being put in suspect lineups without their awareness or consent. This can lead to false accusations against innocent citizens. Most police departments still rely on officers to verify that the suspect chosen by the face recognition software actually matches the camera footage. However, humans shockingly make an error in this process once in every two cases (Bedoya, Alvaro, et al 2016). In some instances, it is not only this human error that is leading to their conviction but rather the system itself. A study, co-authored by the FBI, said that the facial recognition software is actually less accurate when it comes to identifying African Americans. Systems relying on mugshot databases have a disproportionate number of African Americans due to their high arrest rates in America. This creates “racial biased error rates,” that perpetuate implicit and systemic racism in our society (Bedoya, Alvaro, et al 2016). But for American citizens in general, in any crime being solved by using face databases, anyone is a potential suspect. Because of this, regulations should be put in place to limit the use of this technology to cases where its use is relevant and vital to solving the issue.

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,

I am requesting an expungement for employment purposes. I have not applied to any jobs yet.

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

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

According to The Innocence Project, “There have been 329 DNA exonerations, with an average of 14 years served.”

Eyewitness identification are considered to be the most powerful evidence against a suspect. There are numerous reasons for this to occur which includes stress, human memory, and the focus on weapons which leads for the eyewitness to focus less on the perpetrator. When an individual is in a position with high stress, their ability of remembering what actually occurred won't be easy to prove. It leaves the eyewitness unable to recall what occurred at the tie of the scene. This has been a huge problem over the years. According to “Carla Stenzel” eyewitness misidentification will occur because our memory is dynamic. It is very impossible for our brains to perform everything we see. Our memories take in pieces of information and processes the most important information. When a witness is asked by a police officer to give certain details of a suspect, they won't be able to remember how exactly they looked like but will be able to give out certain details like their height, race, and hair color. When a crime is being committed witnesses usually testify that there focus was more on the perpetrator's weapon. All they can focus on would be the size and shape of the weapon and focus less on the actual suspect. Another contribution would be the way the investigator presents the operator to the witness. The investigator prepares a lineup which includes a six pack of people. The use of a six pack lineup has

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

There were 29 exonerations in North America in 2010, according to The Innocence Project, one of the leaders in reviewing suspect convictions and fighting for reversals or outright exoneration.

We do not now how many innocent individuals are currently imprisoned, but we have an idea of the number of people who have been exonerated of crimes for which they were convicted. The National Registry of Exonerations has identified 1491 men and women who have been exonerated from state facilities since 1989 in the United States (University of Michigan Law School, 2015). From 2005 to 2014, there was an average of 64 exonerations from state facilities per year, with exonerees serving an average of twelve years. The Innocence Project (2015), which takes cases in which DNA analysis can be used to prove a prisoner is innocent, has secured 329 post-conviction DNA exonerations and is actively working on 250-300 cases.

The innocence project has exonerated 349 people and of those 349 people, 71% of them have involved eyewitness misidentification. In the Malcolm Bryant case, eyewitness misidentification was a huge reason why he was convicted. The witness testified against Bryant during court and was certain that it was him. David Camm and Malcolm Bryant were convicted based on testimony and evidence, which lead to issues in their cases, but they were later exonerated based on advancements in DNA testing.

Expungement is a process that allows the erasure, destruction or sealing of a criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication after the time has ended (Alarid & Del Carmen, 2012). In the United States, forty sates allow individuals to expunge their arrest records and criminal records (Alarid & Del Carmen, 2012). Even if an expungement is granted, the information can still be accessed by law enforcement, courts, and other government agencies (Alarid & Del Carmen, 2012).

Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.

The witness is not visible to those in the lineup. The witness is asked to identify which, if any, of the individuals committed the crime. A lineup places greater demands on the memory of the witness than does a viewing of a single suspect, and is believed to reduce the chances of a false identification. For example, assume a witness saw a man with a beard and a cap run across an alley near a crime scene. If the police show this witness one man who has a beard and a cap, the witness might make a positive identification. If they instead show the witness several men with a beard and a cap, the witness must make a more detailed identification and may not identify the same man. Identification procedure have challenges on four primary grounds ,