The Great Debate: Save the Innocent or Convict the Guilty?

The controversy over false convictions has been an ongoing process in the field of criminal justice. Both sides struggle to find the balance between bringing people to justice and ensuring the liberty of innocent citizens while still following the laws of the American democracy. This week, I have explored the blogosphere in order to place myself, dare I say it, in the center of the action to see the conflicting thoughts of different groups, organizations and experts on the complex issues regarding false convictions. Centralized in this debate is the cost versus benefit battle between falsely convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free. This becomes an exceedingly controversial issue due to the fact that it relies heavily upon eyewitness identification, particularly in cases of rape. In the 1972 Supreme Court case, Neil v. Biggers, the United States Supreme Court outlined five steps to determine the validity of eyewitness identifications; "[t]hese include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation." However, regardless of these safeguards for valid testimonies, misidentifications have littered the criminal justice system, resulting in many false convictions. In a study done by Samuel R. Gross regarding exonerations in the United States, his statistics show that eyewitness misidentification accounted for 88% of the 121 rape exonerations and 50% of the 205 murder exonerations, which are, without a doubt, significant statistics. As a result, this heated debate is sent underway, with the victims countering the innocents in a fight to have each of their liberties heard. More recently, the case of Troy Anthony Davis (as pictured right) has been a significant topic for many, as reflected by Walker Willingham in his blog post Innocence Matters! There, he reflects upon the the controversial case which has left Davis seated on death row, despite his potential innocence. Similarly, The False Rape Society has presented another facet of this complex argument in their blog post, Two fundamental criminal law principles that protect the innocent are nowhere questioned - except when it comes to rape claims. They acknowledge the complexities in regards to the questionable nature of eyewitness confessions and demonstrate the conflicting viewpoints of both sides vying for their rights in convictions for rape cases. In addition to commenting on their respective pages, I have included my post comments below.

"Innocence Matters!"
Comment:
Thank you for your intriguing post on this highly significant issue which, before, was unknown to me. I do feel as though our criminal justice system is formatted under a more punitive model, which focuses more upon putting to justice those who are believed to have committed crimes. However, sometimes this belief of fairness, punishment and retribution clouds the idea of putting the correct person to justice. This case in particular seems to be extremely controversial, as you have stated that although there was "no physical evidence [that] tied him to the murder" and a "credible different suspect for the crime," the overwhelming number of witnesses testifying otherwise leaves the court in a difficult deciding position. Because of this fact, I agree with your questioning on what's the rush? Particularly in cases involving the death penalty, courts are very meticulous in their efforts to ensure their actions are justified before putting a person to death. In this case, especially in regards to the fact that there seems to be large controversy and confusion, it seems bizarre that they would be set upon his execution before re-trialing him. However, although I agree with your ideas, you present the idea that there should be much care taken whether an innocent man was convicted of a crime "which substantial evidence seems to indicate was committed by someone else." To this I ask, not knowing much about the case, whether the evidence, rather than pointing the finger at another individual, simply points the finger possibly away from Davis. Also, our criminal justice system makes a point in putting a great deal of attention to each of their cases. Although we now ask why they are rushing towards a decision in regards to Davis, I find myself also asking how long the Davis case has been an issue for the courts. Seeing as though there are innumerable cases facing the courts and it becomes their civic duty to make a decision in the name of the American public, after years of deliberation, there comes a point where all the evidence has been presented and they are required to make a decision. So, perhaps in this case, the court finds itself at a point where they feel the evidence leans in favor of one course of action over another and they are acting upon such decision.

"Two fundamental criminal law principles that protect the innocent are nowhere questioned - except when it comes to rape claims"
Comment:
I would first like to thank you for this well-written and intriguing post regarding such a controversial issue. All your arguments prove very valid in such circumstances, particularly when you state that "the victim of a rape is not at risk of losing her liberty for decades if her rapist goes free" and that the risk to an innocent man convicted of rape is that his life "is destroyed, and the lives of his loved ones are often destroyed." I agree with your arguments against false convictions in rape cases, seeing as though evidence demonstrates that approximately 36% of all exonerations are in cases of rape, which is hardly a statistic to shrug at. On top of losing years of their lives, these captives undergo much psychological damage not only inside prison, but outside as well, as their reputations, socialization and lifestyles are ruined. Equally intriguing is your presentation of the alternate argument, demonstrating the insensibility of rape claims and the grey area in which a woman might "recharacterize consensual sex as rape." Your claim that the presumption of innocence is crucial to the crime because there is usually no evidence besides a woman's testimony is true in a sense, however, it leaves the criminal justice system at a standstill. What would you propose as a solution to this conundrum in which the innocent should not be accused too soon? Is it justified for large numbers of sexual predators to go free to save the percentage of those who might be falsely accused? Although I would agree that rape cases are subject to much debate and skepticism, they still do occur frequently in society, whether by an acquaintance or a stranger. The advantage to these particular cases is that they still have surviving witnesses, who can make the appropriate identification and bring the criminal to justice. If these women are treated as though their testimonies are the invalid words of women misinterpreting consensual sexual acts, this eliminates the concept of sex crimes and would make society an open door to sexual predators.

False Convictions: Who is to Blame, the System or the People?

Sixteen years into a "15 years-to-life" sentence, Jeff Doskovic was officially acknowledged as innocent for the alleged murder and rape of Andrea Correa. After being incarcerated at the age of sixteen, his protests were ignored for years before they were finally heard by The Innocence Project, whose representatives allowed for him to receive the proper DNA testing. Following his release from prison in November 2006 (pictured left), Doskovic began his awareness promotion programs for those falsely convicted. In a recent article published on AlterNet.org, he identifies "misconduct at every stage of the criminal justice system" and outlines the numerous causes for false convictions, as well as new methods to ensure a stronger system to prevent wrongful imprisonment. Through a combination of deceitful testimonies, forced confessions, and falsified evidence, Doskovic found himself in a lifelong prison sentence, leaving him to blame the system and the people behind it. Thus, he calls for reform within the field so as to prevent the future occurrence of such wrongful convictions. Similarly, many others have argued that the disadvantages of the system have allowed for the large amount of incorrect incarcerations. Through increased contributions in technology and psychology, the criminal justice system has been able to take large strides towards the reduced occurrence of wrongful convictions and correcting the errors of previous trials. Regardless of these advances, wrongful convictions still remain prevalent through sheer human error and lackluster in the performance and impartiality of law enforcement officials.

Particularly in Doskovic's case, one of the key reasons for his unjust incarceration was a direct result of a lack in DNA evidence. Within the past 20 years, DNA has emerged as a means of exonerations, resulting in a sharp increase in the release of wrongfully convicted individuals (as seen to the right). In a study done by Samuel R. Gross, analyzing exoneration statistics from the years 1989 to 2003, of the total 340 cases included in the study, 121 were of rape and these 121 cases, 105 were cleared on the basis of DNA evidence. Additionally, in 2004, President Bush signed the Justice For All Act, which included the Innocence Protection Act; this ensured that all federal inmates were given the right to petition for DNA testing. Even with these safeguards, Doskovic's rights were violated through a persistent denial of any sort of DNA examination and were ignored for an additional two years, although the Act was enacted in 2004. As indicated in the Report on the Conviction of Jeffrey Deskovic, his requests were only heard at the arrival of the new Westchester County DA. In addition to the injustices in denying Deskovic his requests, one of the greatest issues concerning his case involved police apathy regarding scientific evidence found. During the investigation following the rape, the seminal fluid found in the victim's body excluded Deskovic as a perpetrator, however, the Assistant District Attorney was still convinced of his guilt. Regardless of their accuracy and availability, the DNA and scientific evidence was disregarded by those involved in the case. It was only years later that their error was uncovered using the technique which would have spared them a life-altering, false conviction. Had the officials been unbiased and more detailed in their investigations, this young man would not have lost many critical years of his life. Clearly, criminal justice has the means of establishing correct convictions if not for the poor performance of those operating the system.

Beyond scientific tools, the usage of testimonials and interrogation are also resourceful in the eliciting of truthful evidence in such cases. Particularly through the use of polygraph tests and recorded interrogations, psychologists and police officers are able to make correct judgments on the validity of defendants' statements. However, the uses of these devices are often tampered with in the same way that the DNA evidence from Deskovic's case was tossed aside. According the Report given to District Attorney Janet DiFiore, only 35 minutes of the four hour interrogation of Deskovic was recorded; this may have been to the advantage or detriment of Deskovic. The report goes further to identify that "[t]he whole case against him had been built upon a series of his own statements, most of them unrecorded, culminating in an allegedly incriminating statement, which was entirely unrecorded and which was elicited only after a lengthy, confrontational polygraph examination." Despite outlined guidelines from the American Psychological Association which were established to prevent against the unjust treatment, interrogators of Deskovic, among others have been reported to utilize harsh and illegal techniques. In his article, Deskovic states that "scare tactics, threats of violence, food deprivation, being lied to regarding lie detector results and being told that you can go home if you cooperate" have been the cause for many false confessions, including his own. The Innocence Project identifies that confessions from juveniles, such as Deskovic's, are often used and often unreliable because "children can be easy to manipulate and are not always fully aware of their situation." Undoubtedly, the officers interrogating Deskovic utilizes these forceful tactics in order to gain a confession from him, regardless of the validity. In this case, once again, it is illustrated that regardless of the proper tools and structured system, it is through the actions of the participating individuals that define the success and failure of convictions. Their actions, whether appropriate or corrupt, dictate the result of the conviction.

Government misconduct plays a strong hand in many wrongful convictions, with inappropriate actions and poor decision-making producing innumerable errors in incarcerations. There is the common claim that the functions of the criminal justice system are to blame for these discrepancies, however much of the blame lies in the hands of law enforcement officials. Through tactics such as forced confessions, exclusion of evidence, tampering with evidence and illegal interrogations these officials abuse and ignore the advances in the arena of criminal justice. Thus, the pitfalls in the system of trying alleged criminals can be traced back directly to those individuals who fail to fulfill their designated duties honorably. Today's advanced technology allows for more accuracy in identifying and convicting felons, however, without the help the professionals trained to use such tools honorably, the system is no better now than it was years ago. As a result, individuals such as Jeffrey Deskovic given life-altering and unjust convictions and society is left blaming an otherwise functional system.