Introduction
When erroneous and unfair decisions are made during criminal or civil processes, it is easily interpreted as a wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Detention, incarceration, and even monetary fines imposed on innocent offenders are a few examples. Many people in the American criminal justice system have been victims of this crooked system, which has lowered residents’ faith and patience. Those who have experienced this injustice over the years have watched as their lives waste away in prison and detention centers, with some passing away before fresh evidence is produced in defense of innocence. Researchers are yet to identify the primary factor contributing to these false conviction situations.
However, a few assumptions have been developed, which include eyewitness misidentification, flawed forensics, illegal admissions by weak suspects, manipulation, and intimidation from investigators. Comprehensive research was done using records, the existing state of affairs, and predicted future trends to assess the scope of the miscarriage of justice. Americans are aware of the fairness and blindness of their legal system. If effectively addressed, the breadth of miscarriages of justice is currently assessed to be at 4% or higher and is predicted to increase gradually (Cassell, 2018). Only a small portion of Americans, a country that takes pride in its rights under the Constitution, believe that injustice has existed since the beginning and continues to take place today. The percentage of incorrect convictions obtained utilizing trials vs agreement to plead guilty can be determined by a literal investigation into the trial mistake rates.
The agony endured when all the evidence pointed to them as the true offenders is something that the victims of this injustice never fully recover from. Most ex-offenders, especially those who served their time in jail, are left with psychological and sometimes even bodily defects. The disruption of families in these instances, which also endangers children’s lives, is the biggest problem, though. The harm done to society is comparable to the obstacles that people must face personally. Even if the criminals are found innocent, society and their psychological scars keep them behind bars; in difficult situations, victims may develop peculiar mental states. Other evident characteristics of society and people toward criminal injustice include extreme rage and intolerance for injustice. Wrongful conviction has major systemic repercussions, for instance, victims may experience melancholy while serving their jail sentence and may even experience personal victimization. The thesis will address the problems with the criminal justice system that frequently result in innocent persons being wrongfully convicted.
Discussion
Illegal detention is caused by a multitude of reasons, streaming from purely selfish desires to mistaken identity. For instance, cases that were influenced by eyewitness misidentification indicate the flaws in trusting human knowledge and vision in solving cases. The observer may have misguided ideas when they are called up to identify the suspects. The case of Ronald Cotton is among the most notable instances of eyewitness mistaken identity resulting in unjustified incarceration. Based on the victim’s claim that Cotton committed the rape, Cotton was erroneously found guilty of it in 1984. The victim initially identified someone else from Cotton, but she later changed it after being pushed to do so by the authorities. Cotton was sentenced to 11 years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him and revealed the real offender.
The significance of eyewitness misidentification to the operation of the criminal justice system is highlighted in this case. The use of eyewitness testimony too frequently can result in innocent people being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Due to circumstances, including a witness’s age, race, gender, the magnitude of the incident, the presence of a weapon, and the quantity of time that has elapsed since the crime, bystander testimony is prone to inconsistencies (Sangero, 2019). Willie Williams, a character in The Ghost of the Innocent Man, exemplifies victims of erroneous bystander testimonies (Rachlin, 2017). During the trial, a witness identified Williams as the perpetrator, even though his description did not match the description given by other eyewitnesses. Law enforcement and the court system must therefore take action in order to assess the guarantee and reliability of bystander identification. This encompasses the implementation of expert testimony in documented statements and double-blind lineups. Providing the person who observed the crime with clear instructions and enabling them to take their time while making an identification are two more measures that should be done to avoid identification errors.
Observers are frequently untrustworthy and may misidentify an innocent person as a criminal. Bystanders could be misidentified as a result of outside influences, such as the suspect’s race or manipulative interviewing methods (Graddy & Shostak, 2023). Considering witness testimonies are vital in the justice system, with appropriate effort, change can be achieved. Introducing double-blind lineups prevents the administrator of the lineup from knowing which person is the suspect is one significant idea (Chan, 2021). This can be accomplished in one of two ways: either the administrator wears a blindfold or a different administrator walks the witness through the lineup one by one. In this manner, the administrator is prevented from unintentionally giving the witness any hints about who the culprit is.
When assessing the veracity of witnesses’ claims, it is crucial to take into account their expert testimony. The testimony can be used to assess the veracity of eyewitness accounts and offer explanations for why someone might have identified a suspect incorrectly. They should be regarded as a thorough investigation of the problems related to misidentification. Reviewing the circumstances present at the time of identification, the witness’s personality traits, and a review of the identification process. These accusations may serve as advice for enhancing identification processes. Even under ideal circumstances, they can assist in explaining how a person mistakenly selected a suspect. This is useful in situations where the witness’s memory or perception may be impaired due to history or underlying cognitive impairment.
Misapplied forensics results are another notable aspect that has significantly affected unlawful convictions. In the field of criminal justice, forensic reports are highly recommended, much like eyewitness testimony. By allowing law enforcement to imprison someone against their will using fictitious evidence, bogus dispute findings can lead to unlawful detention (Bonventre, 2021). This might lead to lengthy prison sentences, high legal costs, and other unfavorable outcomes. To condemn people, the criminal court system frequently uses forensic evidence. Unfortunately, erroneous forensic reports can result in innocent persons being falsely accused and, in rare instances, executed.
For instance, Cameron Todd Willingham was found guilty in Texas of starting a fire that claimed the lives of his three children in 1992. A bogus forensic report that stated the fire was intentionally started led to his conviction. Although the information was eventually revealed to be inaccurate, Willingham was put to death in 2004. This and other incidents show how unfair forensic reports may be. By giving the public the idea that the criminal justice system is unjust and unreliable, false forensics results might increase public mistrust of it. Authorities or parties engaged in the case who want to use the innocent person as a scapegoat may threaten to taint the legal process.
False forensic findings can lead to illegal imprisonment in addition to protracted detentions that last longer than the allotted amount of time under the law. These lengthy detention durations would have been advantageous if the court’s orders had been strictly enforced (Scherr & Dror, 2021). Here are a few cases of icrimination caused by erroneous judicial rulings taken from the book The Ghost of the Innocent Man. The blood at the crime scene did not belong to Williams, an innocent man, as represented by the false forensic report (Rachlin, 2017). Another false forensic report falsely stated that the bullet taken from Willies’ chest matched the one discovered at the crime site. Other false reports stated that Williams’ hairs were detected at the crime scene despite the evidence pointing to the contrary.
After the wrongfully accused criminals are imprisoned, the guilty gain a free pass to freedom and often carry on with their transgressions. The efficacy and standard of security in the United States are deteriorating mostly due to this. When senior investigators and prosecutors may be influenced to fabricate evidence, it is evident how unreliable the security of the American court system is (Scherr & Dror, 2021). When forensic evidence is not properly assessed or is inconclusive, this might be extremely alarming. People may be wrongfully charged in such situations and detained in detention longer than necessary, which may lead to serious violations of the law.
To prevent fabricating forensics results that lead to unjustified detention, forensic laboratories are recommended to adhere to quality assurance procedures and standards. This requires following standard operating procedures, such as quality control and quality assurance techniques, establishing the chain of custody, evaluating the legitimacy of the findings through unbiased reviews, and ensuring that proficiency testing is frequently carried out (Norris Et al., 2019). It is suggested that forensic specialists have the necessary training and ongoing education. This involves understanding the implications of their results as well as the limitations and shortcomings of the techniques. Introducing standardized protocols ensures accuracy and consistency, forensic laboratories should create precise protocols for carrying out tests and reporting results. Protocols should outline accepted laboratory procedures, such as the application of tested techniques and keeping accurate records of all procedure phases.
Conclusion
According to the discussion above, enough proof has been provided on the matter regarding unlawful incarceration being a major injustice in the American criminal system. There is a relatively large number of influential factors that are to blame for the gradually growing scope of illegal imprisonment in the United States. As stated earlier, the two leading factors include eyewitness misidentification and false forensic results. Moreover, the mentioned factors form the most trusted measures in the criminal prosecution process as their results hold the heaviest weight in the court ruling process. Consequentially, any faults concerning these two approaches can derail the final ruling in any criminal or civil prosecution proceedings. Following unlawful imprisonment, society and the innocent culprit go through a violent cycle that traumatizes its victims and can cause individuals to lose touch with society. Families are separated, and children may end up in child protection services which scars their psychological development. The justice system has been receiving hateful gazes from its victims and society at large.
Bystanders’ testimonies have been known to be the leading cause of illegal imprisonment in the united states of America. Many factors, including age, gender, time lapsed after incidence as well as observers’ distance from the crime scene, influence the efficiency and reliability of eyewitness testimonies in the justice system. As per the recommendations above, the investigators are advised to enquire about physical attributes that observers remember from the incident, which can help paint a clearer and more precise image of the culprit. In addition, witnesses may be guided to view a suspect at a time without the knowledge of the offender as well as involving multiple observers to increase accuracy.
The other factor in the discussion is false or faulty forensic results which may be due to contamination of evidence or manipulation of the results. Bogus judicial findings can be categorized as the second leading influence for unlawful incarceration after eyewitness testimonies. As a result of this misinformation, innocent suspects either end up in prison or receive longer detention periods which limit their output and productivity in society. A few recommendations to ensure fewer cases concerning false forensic findings leading to illegal imprisonment include advising forensic professionals to obtain proper training and continued education hence improving their reliability. In addition, the courts should make sure that the outcomes of the forensics analysis are fairly assessed and comprehended; for instance, by getting second perspectives and taking into account additional elements that could have impacted the findings.
References
Bonventre, Catherine. L. (2021). “Wrongful convictions and forensic science.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Science, 3(4), e1406. Web.
Cassell, Paul. G.2018. “Overstating America’s wrongful conviction rate: Reassessing the conventional wisdom about the prevalence of wrongful convictions.” Arizona Law Review, 60, 815. Web.
Chan, Alley. 2021. “Eyewitness Identification.”Web.
Graddy, Alivia., & Shostak, Grant. 2023. “Eyewitness identification results in wrongful convictions.” Web.
Norris, Robbert. J., Bonventre, Catherin. L., Redlich, Allison. D., Acker, James. R., & Lowe, Carmen. 2019. “Preventing Wrongful Convictions: An Analysis of State Investigation Reforms.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(4), 597-626. Web.
Rachlin, Benjamin. 2017. “Ghost of the Innocent Man: A True Story of Trial and Redemption.” Little, Brown.
Sangero, Boaz. 2019. “Applying the STAMP Safety Model to Prevent False Convictions Based on Eyewitness Misidentifications.” Albany Law Review, 83, 931. Web.
Scherr Kyler, & Dror, Itiel. 2021. “Ingroup Biases of Forensic Experts: Perceptions of Wrongful Convictions Versus Exonerations.” Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(1), 89-104. Web.