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. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)"

No description available.

This thesis explores how society can and should compensate those who have been wrongfully convicted after they are exonerated and how we can prevent these mistakes from happening to others in the future. It begins by presenting research on the scope of the problem. Then it suggests possible reforms to the U.S. justice system that would minimize the rate of innocent convictions. Lastly, it takes both a philosophical and political look at what just compensation would entail as well as a variety of state compensation laws.

This qualitative multiple-case study sought to provide an in-depth understanding of how children living in broken families-due to the wrongful conviction of parent(s)-developed psychosocial issues. The theoretical frameworks applied to this study were the social learning theory, the social control theory, the role-modeling theory, and the general theory of crime. A purposeful sample of 13 adults who were children at the time of their parents’ wrongful incarceration were drawn for phone and in-person interviews. The data were transcribed and analyzed to code, sort, and organize; to analyze connections in the information, and to compare and contrast cases. The multiple-case study data were analyzed using 1st and 2nd cycle coding. Among the 10 themes identified in this study were these 5: family structure and activities, behavioral issues associated with the wrongful conviction of their parents, wrongful conviction effects on education, mental health impacts of a parental wrongful conviction on left-behind children and bullying in school and at home. This implications for positive social change are that the findings raise awareness of the psychosocial issues experienced by children whose parent(s) were wrongfully imprisoned for government officials, community leaders, policymakers, and justice reform advocates who can use them to implement programs to provide psychosocial assistance to all children of incarcerated parents.

Une condamnation pénale définitive ne peut en principe plus être remise en cause. La chose jugée doit en effet être tenue pour vraie. L’adage non bis in idem et les principes de l’autorité et de la force de la chose jugée semblent dès lors interdire de rouvrir le procès pénal. Toutefois, le législateur français prévoit deux procédures distinctes permettant de remettre encause la condamnation prononcée : la révision et le réexamen. Les conditions de mise en oeuvre de ces procédures et leurs spécificités en font des procédures très exceptionnelles. Par la présentation d’éléments nouveaux de fait pour la révision, et de droit pour le réexamen, le requérant peut dans certains cas prétendre à nouvelle étude de son affaire. Cependant cette réouverture ne pourra être décidée que par une juridiction ad hoc et sera de type différent selon le nouveau procès envisagé. De plus, l’issue de ce nouveau procès pourra permettre de maintenir la condamnation en dépit des nouveaux faits présentés ou reconnaître l’innocence du condamné. / Final sentencing in a criminal trial cannot in principle be questioned any more. Indeed the adjudged case has to be considered as definitely settled. The non bis in idem Latin saw and the res judicata tenet thus seem to preclude the re-opening of a criminal trial. And yet, lawgivers put in place two distinct legal processes that enable French citizens to challenge their sentencing: reviewing and re-hearing. The conditions for carrying out these processes and their own specifities make these proceedings quite exceptional. Through the presentation of new evidence for reviewing, and because re-hearing can be considered as of right, convicted people may in some cases get a new trial. Nevertheless only an ad hoc jurisdiction can decide upon a new hearing and the latter will be of a different kind depending on the new trial at hand. Moreover, the upshot of this new trial will make it possible either to maintain the sentencing notwithstanding new evidence being presented to a new court or to declare the defendant not guilty.