Our Justice System Convicts Innocent People, Essay Example

There are many reasons why innocent individuals are wrongly convicted. The first reason involves the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses. In many instances, the only evidence available for a particular case is the eyewitness account, which emphasizes the importance of the words these individuals say. However, it is important for the court to consider that it is possible for these individuals to have alternate agendas, and that attempts should be made to bring these agendas to light. Furthermore, many individuals cannot be completely certain of what they saw happen, especially in traumatic cases. Therefore, even though many of these people are well-intended, they may be recalling information inaccurately as a consequence of the type of event that had occurred or due to the amount of time that had lapsed since the firsthand account was seen. For example, this can occur if a case was finally heard three years after the relevant crime was committed.

The second reason that innocent individuals are wrongly convicted is in the instance of perjured testimony. The lawyers for both the plaintiff and defendant typically have time to work on their cases, and they may be able to influence eyewitness testimony by promising these individuals different things. While this is not legal, it is important to consider that it does occur and can have detrimental impacts on the court case. An example of this could be an eyewitness reporting a crime as she saw it, but by altering specific details of the scene so that it supports the opposite party. This has the potential for strengthening evidence or claims on the other side of the argument that ultimately blinds the judge and the jury from the truth of the situation.

A third reason that innocent individuals are wrongly convicted is due to the availability of DNA testing. DNA testing is useful to confirm the identity of bodily evidence, and should be used as a standard in modern cases to confirm guilt or innocence. However, in some cases, courts claim that this is too expensive which inhibits the ability of the institution to determine the whole truth. Therefore, the ability or inability to acquire this information can alter the results of the case. In order to find the whole truth all of the time, DNA testing should always be utilized in cases in which this type of evidence is present. For example, an innocent individual could be wrongly convicted if a blood sample at the crime scene is assumed to be his. This could easily be checked by sequencing the DNA in the blood and comparing it to the suspect. If this is not done, then it will not be possible to clear the name of the suspect, which could be used to the advantage of the opposing party.

A fourth factor that leads to an inaccurate conviction of innocent individuals is when police misconduct causes problems with the pretrial criminal procedure processes. When police initially search an individual who they wish to convict of a crime, it is necessary for them to have evidence before the individual is arrested. Furthermore, they must allow the individual to invoke certain rights, which could be lack of permission to search hidden areas or to remain silent by utilizing the Miranda rights. However, many police interpret this as resistance to arrest, which usually counts against the individual when their case is heard. For example, an individual who wishes to remain silent until acquiring a lawyer may be forced to speak in a police interrogation before the lawyer is acquired.

A fifth factor, related to police misconduct, is when the police officer delivers false confessions. Occasionally, this is driven by the want for the police officer to remove certain individuals from the street on a discriminatory basis. Other times, this could be a direct consequence of a mistake that the officer made and wishes to be covered up. However, it is never legal for a police officer to offer a false confession to the court. An example of this is when a police officer suspects a black man of selling drugs and tries to arrest him, but finds that the man has no drugs on his person. It is possible for the officer to lie and procure drugs to serve as evidence, and then to lie about the decision in court.

A sixth factor is related to prosecutorial misconduct. In many cases, both the plaintiff and defendant’s lawyers are concerned with calling jury members to the court that will support their case. As a consequence, the individuals selected may be biased. For example, if a plaintiff is going against a defendant of color, it would be in his best interest to recruit members of the jury that are either racist against the individual, or more likely to support the plaintiff due to sharing a similar skin color. In order to ensure that this doesn’t happen, it is essential to put forth requirements that will help recruit juries that are more representative of the overall population of a particular area.

A seventh factor is related to ineffective defense representation. While individuals that cannot afford their own lawyer are always offered one for free, it is arguable that these lawyers are not always effective as the ones that are hired by the opposing party. Ultimately, the good lawyers work for higher fees. Therefore the defendant may be working with an individual who does not have skill equal to that of the plaintiff’s lawyer. For example, an individual who was given a lawyer by the court cannot be sure that he was in practice for very long or that he had won many court cases. Thus, even though evidence can weigh in the favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s lawyer will do a better job at presenting the case which will lead to the wrong side winning.

The eighth factor, ineffective capital representation, is related to ineffective defense representation. The individual with better funds will be able to get the better lawyer. In addition, this individual will have access to a greater amount of resources in terms of evidence. For example, an individual with a lot of funds will be able to order a DNA test for evidence if it is not ordered by the court, but an individual without funds will not be afforded this same opportunity.

The most effective way to lower the number of wrongful convictions would be to require both the plaintiff and the defendant to utilize a lawyer randomly selected by the court to allow each individual to act on equal ground. This will prevent finances and status from interfering with the truth. In addition, the police should be monitored more closely to prevent against police misconduct. This will prevent condemning individuals before the trial is heard and ensuring that bias is not a factor in cases.

References

Krieger, S. A. (2011). Why our justice system convicts innocent people, and the challenges faced by innocence projects trying to exonerate them. New Criminal Law Review, 14(3), 333-402.