Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Measuring Wrongful Convictions

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_162

Overview

Measuring wrongful convictions includes counting exonerations, estimating the incidence of wrongful convictions, and measuring the correlates of wrongful convictions in known exoneration cases. Measuring wrongful convictions is an important task because it can be used to evaluate the inaccuracy and unfairness of the criminal justice system.

A wrongful conviction is a conviction that is factually inaccurate, that is, the wrong person was convicted or a person was convicted for a crime that did not occur. An actual innocence exoneration is an official act that erases the legal status of guilt based on a judgment of factual innocence.

Wrongful convictions are inherently difficult to establish because they are “invisible” when they occur, the process of reconstructing equivocal evidence that led to a conviction in the first place is difficult, and prosecutors and courts are resistant to opening old convictions.

Lists of exonerations are not kept by government agencies but by...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bedau HA, Radelet ML (1987) Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Rev 40:21–120Google Scholar
  2. Borchard EM (1932) Convicting the innocent: errors of criminal justice. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  3. Covey R (2011) Mass exoneration data and the causes of wrongful convictions (manuscript). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1881767 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1881767
  4. Crichton N (2000) Information point: prevalence and incidence. J Clin Nurs 9:188 [Following Brenda Roe and Helen Doll (2000). Prevalence of urinary incontinence and its relationship with health status. J Clin Nurs 9:178–188]Google Scholar
  5. Death Penalty Information Center (n.d.). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home Last retrieved 1 Jan 2012
  6. Drizin SA, Leo RA (2004) The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carol Law Rev 82:891–1007Google Scholar
  7. Forejustice.org (n.d.). Forejustice.org
  8. Forst B (2004) Errors of justice: nature, sources, and remedies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank J, Frank B (1957) Not guilty. Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrett BL (2008) Judging innocence. Columbia Law Rev 108:55–141Google Scholar
  11. Garrett BL (2011) Convicting the innocent: where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorard S (2010) Measuring is more than assigning numbers. In: Walford G, Tucker E, Viswanathan M (eds) The Sage handbook of measurement. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 389–407Google Scholar
  13. Gould JB, Leo RA (2010) One-hundred years later: wrongful convictions after a century of research. J Crim Law Criminol 100(3):825–868Google Scholar
  14. Gross S (2008) Convicting the innocent. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 4:173–192Google Scholar
  15. Gross SR (1987) Loss of innocence: Eyewitness identification and proof of guilt. J Leg Stud 16:395–453.Google Scholar
  16. Gross SR (2011) New data on exonerations in the United States. Paper presented at the Sixty-third annual meeting of the American society of criminology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross SR, O’Brien B (2008) Frequency and predictors of false conviction: why we know so little, and new data on capital cases. J Empir Leg Stud 5(4):927–962Google Scholar
  18. Gross SR, Jacoby K, Matheson DJ, Montgomery N, Patil S (2005) Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003. J Crim Law Criminol 95(2):523–560Google Scholar
  19. Harmon TR (2001) Predictors of miscarriages of justice in capital cases. Justice Q 18(4):949–968Google Scholar
  20. Harmon TR, Lofquist WS (2005) Too late for luck: a comparison of post-Furman exonerations and executions of the innocent. Crime Delinq 51:498–520Google Scholar
  21. Hoffman MB (2007) The myth of factual innocence. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82(2):663–690Google Scholar
  22. Huff CR, Rattner A, Sagarin E (1986) Guilty until proved innocent. Crime Delinq 32:518–544Google Scholar
  23. Innocence Project (n.d.). http://www.innocenceproject.org/. Last retrieved 11 March 2013
  24. Jencks C (1994) The homeless. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Justice Denied (n.d.). http://justicedenied.org/. Last retrieved 1 Jan 2012
  26. Leo RA (2005) Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: Developing a criminology of wrongful conviction. J Contemp Crim Just 21(3):201–223.Google Scholar
  27. Loftin C, McDowall D (2010) The use of official records to measure crime and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 26(4):527–532Google Scholar
  28. Marquis J (2006, January 26) Op-ed, the innocent and the shammed. N Y Times, p A23Google Scholar
  29. National Registry of Exonerations (n.d.). http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx. Last retrieved 11 March 2013
  30. Norris RJ (2011) Assessing compensation statutes for the wrongly convicted. Crim Just Policy Rev 23(3):352–374.Google Scholar
  31. Poveda TG (2001) Research note: estimating wrongful convictions. Justice Q 18(3):689–708Google Scholar
  32. Ramsey RJ, Frank J (2007) Wrongful conviction: perception of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime Delinq 53(3):436–470Google Scholar
  33. Rattner A (1988) Convicted but innocent: wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law Hum Behav 12(3):283–294Google Scholar
  34. Risinger DM (2007) Innocents convicted: an empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. J Crim Law Criminol 97(3):761–806Google Scholar
  35. Roman J, Walsh K, Lachman P, Yahner J (2012) Post-conviction DNA testing and wrongful conviction. Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J (2000) Actual innocence: five days to execution, and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Schehr RC (2005) The criminal cases review commission as a state strategic selection mechanism. Am Crim Law Rev 42:1289–1302Google Scholar
  38. Tucker W, Cheit R (2010) Sensitive issues and the difficulty to measure: the case of measuring child sexual abuse. In: Walford J, Tucker E, Viswanathan M (eds) The Sage handbook of measurement. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 429–454Google Scholar
  39. Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).Google Scholar
  40. Yant M (1991) Presumed guilty: when innocent people are wrongly convicted. Prometheus Books, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  41. Zalman M (2012) Qualitatively estimating the incidence of wrongful convictions. Crim Law Bull 48(2):221–279Google Scholar
  42. Zalman M, Smith B, Kiger A (2008) Officials’ estimates of the incidence of ‘actual innocence’ convictions. Justice Q 25(1):72–100Google Scholar
  43. Zalman M, Larson MJ, Smith B (2011) Citizens’ attitudes toward wrongful convictions. Crim Justice Rev 37(1):51–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA