According to Smalarz and Wells (2014), the leading cause of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification. Smalarz and Wells described a unique case where a rape victim, JT, had the opportunity to correctly identify her attacker. JT’s lawyer had received reports of her attacker bragging about getting away with the rape while he was in prison for another crime. The victim, JT, incorrectly identified the attacker, she actually choose the same person she choose in her first line up after the assault. The information JT’s lawyer presented her had essential information on the case and to convict the culprit but, the timing of the information was received too late.…
Sexual Harassment- harassment or unwelcome attention of a sexual nature. It includes a range of behavior from mild transgressions and annoyances to serious abuses, which can even involve forced sexual activity…
Possibly the single most greatest cause of wrongful convictions worldwide is eyewitness misidentifications. Although eyewitness testimony can be very convincing and persuasive before a judge and jury, not too many people have a photographic memory. Only 3% of people worldwide have a photographic memory. An eyewitnesses memory is not as accurate as watching a surveillance tape of the crime. Instead, eyewitness identification must be preserved carefully, just like any other evidence collected in the case. All the more reason that a witnesses statement should be taken immediately and then be asked the same questions at a later time to ensure the stories match up. If there is any major variation in a witness statement, they should not be allowed to testify during a trial. This may lead to unreliable information and wrongfully portray how the crime had taken place and who was involved. A 1982 case involving a man, Calvin Willis, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for aggravated rape of a 10 year old girl. Blood and seminal stains were collected from the clothing and bedding and Willis was identified as a contributor…
Jackiw, L. B., Arbuthnott, K. D., Pfeifer, J. E., Marcon, J. L., & Meissner, C. A.(2008).…
Crime seems to be on a rise, from low poverty areas to the white collar vicinities. Today’s technology however, is assisting with the apprehension of criminals through the means of cameras, computers, fingerprinting and others. However, something that technology cannot help with is to identify the exact actions of individuals, nor can you duplicate what is seen by others. Eyewitnesses are so important when it comes to the criminal process. It’s vital for individuals to give accurate account of crimes witnessed. It is just as important for those that are gathering the information, or witness statements, to assess each eyewitness correctly, for that statement can put an innocent man in jail and a criminal back in the streets.…
Eyewitness testimony accounted for a majority of the convicted while others contained forensic evidence such as fingerprints, blood evidence, and hair comparison. A small percentage accounted for informant testimony which were found to be inaccurate. When pertaining to the court of appeals results showed that defective evidenced was not reviewed effectively. Consequently the convictions that were reversed only accounted for 14% with almost half consisting of actual inaccuracy. When reviewing the case at the appellate level justifying guilt or innocence is at the highest regard. Unfortunately this can often be difficult when having to make such a ruling while also deciding if an error exists. Defendants that pursued the appellate process were seldom successful challenging innocent claims. Due to the expense and difficulty of challenging the evidence. Convictions that did go to appeal for eyewitness identification were not reversed. Cases pertaining to federal claims did not proceed to appeal, even if they were innocent. Also defendants that gave false confessions only half actually raised a challenged, but none acknowledged a…
In society it is substantially common for people to be exonerated for a crime they did not commit. Unfortunately it is even more common for that to happen when they are incarcerated due to inaccurate eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness research has demonstrated that there are a multitude of ways to conduct identification processes, however, the processes that police often use today are more likely to encourage inaccurate identification. In addition there have been many case studies of exonerated people that show the downfalls of eyewitness testimony. Wrongful incarceration has consistently demonstrated that inaccurate identification carries a big weight when it comes to wrongful identification, in fact, in the article Contamination of Eyewitness Self-Reports and Mistaken-Identification Problem by Laura Smalarz and Gary L. Wells, they state that there is an average of thirty three percent of witnesses who make an identification from a lineup identify a known innocent filler. There is a lot of thought behind the processes of identification but there are so many variables that can taint a subject’s confidence.…
Results from the researchers questionnaire sent to exonerated individuals, Innocence Project attorneys, and incarcerated inmates claiming innocence will be analyzed thoroughly based off the information of the individual’s charges, sentence served, reasons they were wrongfully convicted, key evidence that reversed the initial charges, and reasons that made it difficult for inmates to have access to post-conviction procedures. Feedback from the Innocence Project attorneys and incarcerated but claiming innocent inmates will also be analyzed. These results will be compared and put together for an explanation regarding the reasons that lead to wrongful convictions. Results leading to inaccurate eyewitness identification as the top reason that leads toward wrongful conviction and poor development of eyewitness identification procedures would confirm the hypothesis. However, if results showed otherwise, with inaccurate eyewitness identification as not the most common element and statistics show eyewitness identification procedures are frequently developed and improved, this type of result will disconfirm the researchers…
“In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamberan outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes” (Arkowitz & Lilienfeld, 2010). This is one case of how eyewitnesses can go wrong this was the story of how a man who was wrongly convicted because of someone who was an eyewitness. This story is one of many people who have been prosecuted under false accusations. There are a few things that can contribute to falsely convicting an individual like the witness being under a lot of pressure and stress when trying to properly identify someone. They witness could also be effected if there was any type of trauma or the perpetrator could be wearing a disguise, with a mask fake hair of sunglass that takes way from making identification. Also race can play a major role in what the witness…
These wrongful convictions played a major role in more than 75% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing (The Innocence Project, 2010). Although eyewitness testimony can be critical evidence before a judge or jury; 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. The research which was conducted by the Innocence Project revealed that the human mind is not like a tape recorder or video camera; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall the instance exactly how it occurred. Nevertheless, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene, it must be documented carefully and retrieved methodically and quickly, or it can be contaminated (The Innocence project 2010). We as people can carry fibers, through our clothing, skin and hair that can cause the contamination of a crime scene just by not following proper procedure. Furthermore, in these types of cases, DNA has proven what scientists already know, that eyewitness identification is frequently…
In fact, eyewitnesses commonly misidentify people and misremember events. As a result, many have been falsely convicted of serious crimes, including robbery, assault and murder. The Innocence Project reports that 70 percent of convictions, which were eventually overturned based on DNA testing, involved eyewitness misidentifications.…
In the article, “Safeguards Against Wrongful Conviction in Eyewitness Identification Cases: Insights from Empirical Research,” Andrew Smith and Lisa Dufraimont (2014) address how eyewitness identifications are vital factors in convicting suspects. However, some of those identifications are inaccurate or mistaken, and innocent people can be wrongly convicted. In fact, mistaken eyewitness identification is the main factor in wrongful convictions of the innocent (Smith and Dufraimont, 2014). Furthermore, eyewitness identifications are not the only factors to consider. Law enforcement personnel and lawyers can also “contribute to wrongful convictions” (Smith & Dufraimont, 2014 p. 200). As a result, precautions were established to prevent such…
Eyewitness Misidentification alone is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in 72% of convictions. It’s unbelievable because research shows that memory is malleable and that an eye witness who is uncertain, can become much more certain over time. I also learned that when an eyewitness identifies a suspect it’s possible the police unconsciously provides information to them. Officers also try and use one suspect in multiple procedures with the eyewitness and that will increase the witness’s confidence to…
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. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties.…
testimonials are possible, faulty forensic science does happen, and there is such thing as a false…