In recent years wrongful convictions have received a considerable amount of research attention. This flourishing interest has resulted in a growing body of literature that aims to investigate this criminal justice phenomenon. Specifically, the current academic literature suggests that exonerees have reported feeling stigmatized; however, public perception research suggests that the public is actually supportive of exonerees. As very little research has been conducted on public perceptions of wrongful conviction—and on the views of community members, in particular—this thesis sought to further explore this topic using open-ended, structured interviews. In addition, the literature has been criticized for its lack of theory integration. Therefore, the results of this study have been interpreted in the context of Giddens‘ Structuration Theory. Indeed, public perception and support are important as they may influence policy changes and encourage the government to be more forthcoming when it comes to preventing wrongful convictions and helping exonerees post-conviction. Overall, results indicated that community members defined wrongful conviction as cases of factual innocence. They also had limited knowledge of wrongful conviction, leading some participants to believe that wrongful convictions were infrequent. Community members were also able to identify several factors that lead to wrongful convictions (e.g., mistaken eyewitnesses), felt that the criminal justice system did a fair job in light of wrongful convictions, and generally held positive views toward exonerees (e.g., believing that they should receive supportive services, such as financial compensation, job training, and apologies). Furthermore, results highlight that while community members acknowledge that exonerees likely experience stigmatization, the majority of participants did not personally express stigmatizing views. / UOIT

Pirminis dėmesys neteisėtų nuteisimų problemai buvo išskirtinai susijęs su atskiromis bylomis ir pavieniais išteisinimų atvejais, tačiau vėliau šis reiškinys susilaukė didesnio mokslinio susidomėjimo. Pripažįstant, jog neteisėtai nuteisti asmenys ir visuomenė patiria didelę žalą, plačiau imtasi analizuoti ir valstybės civilinės deliktinės atsakomybės tokiais atvejais klausimas. Galiojantys nacionaliniai įstatymai, Tarptautinis Pilietinių ir Politinių Teisių Paktas, Europos Žmogaus Teisių Konvencija įtvirtina asmens teisę siekti kompensacijos neteisėtų nuteisimų, suėmimų ir sulaikymų atvejais, tačiau atlikti tyrimai visgi rodo, jog nevisada užtikrinamos išteisintųjų ar asmenų, kurių atžvilgiu procesas nutraukiamas reabilituojančiais pagrindais, teisės į deramą kompensaciją. Pasigendant tyrimų susijusiu klausimu Lietuvoje, šiuo darbu mėginama išsiaiškinti, ar asmuo turi teisę reikalauti iš valstybės atlyginti su bylos tyrimu susijusias išlaidas, patirtą turtinę ir neturtinę žalą, nuostolius, ir ar valstybė turi pareigą šią žalą atlyginti, kuomet asmenys visiškai išteisinami arba procesas jų atžvilgiu nutraukiamas reabilituojančiais pagrindais. Darbe apžvelgiami įvairūs susiję probleminiai aspektai, atliekama Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo bei Lietuvos teismų praktikos analizė. Pateikiama apžvalga, kaip šie klausimai reglamentuojami ir kokios kompensavimo sistemos taikomos įvairiose valstybėse, bei kokia yra šios teisės įtvirtinimo reikšmė visuomenei, valstybei ir konkrečiam... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The initial focus on the issue of wrongful convictions (miscarriages of justice, judicial errors or errors of justice) was exclusively related to the research into individual cases of acquitted persons, but this subject has also been recently analysed by the scholars of criminal and civil law. Unfortunately, in Lithuania no significant reasearches on this matter have been produced so far, and this master thesis is an attempt to analyse the aspects relating to the compensation probabilities for the wrongfully convicted, arrested and detained people in Lithuania as well as in other jurisdictions. While generally accepting the extremely severe negative consequences for the unjustified restrictions or deprivations over the basic human right – the right to freedom – the indemnification aspects are usually left aside. This question is also problematic due to its interdisciplinary nature: the unlawful actions of the investigators, prosecutors or the court have to be proven and the person has to be convicted under the criminal acts or criminal procedure acts; yet, the compensation for those actions is awarded following civil law procedures provided it fulfills the prerequisites set by civil laws. The institution of the civil tort liability of the state is analysed in regard of this specific matter. The applicable Lithuanian legislation, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms refer... [to full text]

No description available.

The term "exonerated"‖refers to a legal acquittal of a former conviction due to the introduction of new evidence. Since 1989, the number of legal xonerations has increased dramatically due to DNA and other new evidentiary technologies that can demonstrate innocence of formally convicted persons. This research focuses on the lived experience of exoneration and its aftermath through a life history of John Thompson (JT), a New Orleans native, convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1985. In 2003, after eighteen years in Angola, the Louisiana State Penitentiary, fourteen on death row, JT was exonerated. Exoneration theoretically removes the official stigma of conviction and restores full civil rights on former prisoners such as JT. Yet ―exonerees‖ face all the social, political, and personal problems that characterize the post-release experience of convicted felons. JT‘s experience is an important case of exonerees‘ quest for the restoration of standing, justice and compensation.

How would you feel if after having spent many years incarcerated for a crime that you did not commit and when finally you are released to a broken life where there is nobody to respond effectively to all the damages that you have and that you will continue to endure due to an unfortunate miscarriage of justice? In Canada, compensation for wrongful convictions is a legal issue which has yet to find a solution for those who the government has denied to pay compensation for and the damages such wrongful conviction brought to their lives. This thesis will analyze the legal problem of compensation for wrongful convictions in Canada from a tort law perspective and will present an alternative to the existing regime to serve justice to those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.

How would you feel if after having spent many years incarcerated for a crime that you did not commit and when finally you are released to a broken life where there is nobody to respond effectively to all the damages that you have and that you will continue to endure due to an unfortunate miscarriage of justice? In Canada, compensation for wrongful convictions is a legal issue which has yet to find a solution for those who the government has denied to pay compensation for and the damages such wrongful conviction brought to their lives. This thesis will analyze the legal problem of compensation for wrongful convictions in Canada from a tort law perspective and will present an alternative to the existing regime to serve justice to those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.

Available research demonstrates that public perceptions and beliefs about the Criminal Justice System (CJS) differ from its actual processes and procedures, but there is little research on the effects of such a difference, specifically with regard to wrongful accusation and/or conviction of factually innocent persons, and their families. Perceptions and beliefs, held as reliable and accurate knowledge, may impact on wrongful accusation/conviction of the factually innocent, both on the lived experiences of wrongly accused/convicted persons themselves, and on perceptions held about them (and responses to calls for case reviews) within the wider public. Although a great deal of research has been carried out on the subject of wrongful conviction generally, this has focussed, in the main, on legal, procedural and structural causes of wrongful conviction, and, in particular, on a small number of ‘high profile’ cases. This research examines perceptions and beliefs held as knowledge by individuals claiming to be factually innocent, wrongly accused/convicted persons, and the results of attempts to employ such perceptions and beliefs to maintain claims of innocence. Further, the experiences of family and friends of the wrongly convicted, whose lives continue in the community following the conviction of their family member, are examined, with particular attention to the interface of beliefs and perceptions between such families and the wider community. To a lesser extent, the role of the media, in shaping public opinion, the effects of media coverage on trial procedures and outcomes, and non-reporting or selective reporting is also addressed. A series of semi-structured interviews was carried out throughout the UK, with wrongly accused/convicted persons, family members of those individuals, and members of groups and organisations working to highlight the problems of wrongful accusation and conviction. A survey aimed at examining key perceptions and beliefs, held as factual knowledge about the CJS within the wider public, was also conducted. The analysis of the data indicated that not only do individuals and families attempt to employ erroneous perceptions and beliefs as factual knowledge in cases of wrongful accusation and conviction, but that such attempts feed into and support the case against the wrongly accused (in direct opposition to the aims and objectives of those employing them). Furthermore, knowledge of the actual workings of the CJS (held by CJS actors) can be, and is, used to exploit the ignorance of those so accused, and their family members. This is made possible because legal meanings of key words and phrases are vastly different from their commonly understood meanings, a factor known only to CJS actors, and not, generally, to the wider public. Political rhetoric and media representations support and reinforce those commonly held understandings, simultaneously maintaining the inaccessible code of actual CJS processes, thereby influencing public perceptions of those who are accused and convicted.

Magister Scientiae Dentium - MSc(Dent) / Bite mark evidence has been admitted into US courts since the 1870s. It quickly gained popularity after the conviction of W.E. Marx in 1974 for manslaughter using primarily bite mark evidence. However, since the development of DNA typing and testing in forensic science, the emergence of wrongful convictions has placed the validity of bite mark evidence admissibility into severe dispute. This mini-thesis is a condensation of the past ten years’ worth of literature on the latest researches regarding bite mark evidence. The theory of the uniqueness of the human dentition is analysed. The accurate reproducibility of bite mark on skin with regard to distortion is discussed. Some bite mark court cases, including wrongful convictions are explored. Inconsistent expert opinions and the lack of standards amongst practitioners are also examined. The aim of this study is to summarize the validity of bite mark evidence in the courts of law.

In Canada, wrongful convictions arose as a social problem with the rise of the innocence movement throughout the 1990s (Zalman, 2020). Despite its rise as a social problem and the increasing attention it has received in the popular media, there has been a lack of research analyzing exactly how wrongful convictions are constructed. The purpose of this research is to analyze how the claimsmakers present at the Morin Inquiry constructed the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. The purpose of this analysis is to provide insight into the overall construction of wrongful convictions as a social problem through the examination of the claimsmaking taking place within a typifying example. To accomplish this, a qualitative content analysis of the Commission on the Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin, using a social constructionist lens, was conducted. Specifically, this thesis analyzed the contents of the Morin Inquiry using the theory of contextual constructionism as defined by Best (1987, 2013). The findings of this research reveal that: (1) the claimsmakers in the Morin Inquiry constructed Guy Paul Morin’s wrongful conviction as a preventable occurrence caused by a combination of individual wrongdoings and correctible systemic errors; (2) through the construction of blameless victims and blameworthy villains as well as the demonstration that wrongful convictions challenge the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, the claimsmakers were able to demonstrate that Morin’s wrongful conviction was worth addressing; and (3) through the adoption of inquiry recommendations, future wrongful convictions can be prevented, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system can be restored. Finally, this thesis concludes by discussing implications, contributions and limitations of the findings before presenting ideas for future research.

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)" / Une personne est injustement condamnée à l'emprisonnement. Elle est victime d'une erreur judiciaire. Plusieurs causes peuvent être à l'origine d'une telle injustice mais malheureusement il est difficile de le prouver. Le système de justice pénale au pays n'est pas à l'abri des condamnations injustifiées et plusieurs innocentes victimes en ont payé le prix. Or, comment une victime d'erreur judiciaire peut-elle prouver son innocence et ainsi recouvrer la liberté à laquelle elle a droit? Certes, l'aveu du coupable ou la découverte d'une nouvelle preuve peuvent servir de moyens de reconnaissance factuelle d'une condamnation injustifiée. Toutefois, certains obstacles procéduraux comme les délais d'appel, les règles d'admissibilité de la preuve nouvelle ou encore le mécanisme de correction des erreurs judiciaires prévu aux articles 696.1 et suivants du Code criminel peuvent compliquer le scénario. Avant le 4 juin 2002, cette dernière procédure était visée par l'article 690 du Code. Toutefois, suite à de nombreuses critiques ainsi qu'à une consultation publique orchestrée par le gouvernement canadien, des modifications législatives ont été apportées à cette procédure. Mais celles-ci sont-elles suffisantes? Nous pensons que certaines des modifications sont grandement appréciables. Cependant, la structure d'évaluation des dossiers et de recommandation des dossiers au ministre de la Justice mériterait la mise en place d'un comité formé d'avocats indépendants pour conseiller ce dernier. Cela est nécessaire afin de réduire à néant tout conflit d'intérêts potentiel de la part du Ministre et d'assurer la transparence du processus en cause. / A person is unjustly condemned to imprisonment. He or she is victim of a wrongful conviction. Many causes can lead to such an injustice but unfortunately, it is hard to prove. The country's criminal justice system makes no exception to wrongful verdicts of guilt and many innocent people have paid the priee. Thus, how can a person victim of a wrongful conviction prove his innocence and recover his rightful freedom? Of course, the confession of the true guilty person, the discovery of new evidence or a special inquiry commission are all ways of recognizing factually an unjust guilty verdict. However, certain procedural obstacles such as appeal delays, rules of admissibility of new evidence or even the procedure for correcting wrongful convictions provided under article 696.1 and following of the Criminal code, can complicate the scenario. Before June 4, 2002, the latter procedure was provided under article 690 of the Code. However, following great criticism as well as a public consultation orchestrated by the Canadian government, legislative modifications were brought to that procedure. Are the modifications made to the procedure sufficient? We believe that some of them are greatly appreciable. However, the evaluation and case recommendation structure to the Minister deserves the creation of a committee constituted by attorneys fully independent of the Minister able to advise him or her. This is necessary in order to fully reduce any potential conflicts of interest by the Minister and would ensure transparence of the process in question.