Extent of the problem and Evidence of Compliance The extent of the problem concerning the wrongfully convictions by jurors seems to lie within several areas. First, once a crime has been committed, the public outcry demands justice; therefore, there is a sense of urgency to quickly resolve the crime. As a result, the system may circumvent some procedures; thereby convicting the wrong individual.
Secondly, while the nation has gotten better in the area of race relations, the amount of prejudice has not diminished; therefore, black on white criminal proceedings still affects an enormous amount of the nation’s population as we. Thirdly, the media coverage has an even bigger impact on an individual’s perception of the wrongfully convicted, because most Americans are not afforded the opportunity to be present for the investigative proceedings involved in criminal proceedings.
As a result, we tend to rely on the media’s coverage and distorted view points as the main source of information we receive. Fourthly, with the invent of DNA testing some individuals have been released or exonerated through the use of this specialized testing method; however, most individuals cannot afford the amount of legal fees associated therein. Moreover, those individuals that are granted new hearings, or are exonerated using this procedure, have been assisted by groups such as the Innocent Project.
Fifthly, the communities from which these individuals were wrongly convicted may still harbor ill feelings regarding their exoneration, which means while the court may exonerate them of all charges, the court of public opinion stills finds them to be guilty (Tyler and Vartkessina, 2012). Finally, even though some individuals have their cases dismissed through legal proceedings within the court system, their records still have to be expunged, which requires the assistance of an attorney, and the fees associated thereof (Roberts, 2003). Evidence of Compliance
The evidence of compliance involved with the studies contained herein examines criminal suspects and how they confess to crimes they did not commit. Moreover, once an individual has confessed to a crime then the criminal justice system does not recognize a need to further investigate a crime for other evidence. Additionally, a review of a 2003 study concerning wrongful convictions, where jury’s are concerned, found that confessions from those individuals indicted was used as evidence in 14 cases out of 42 cases, and in cases involving a co-defendant 11 cases were used as evidence (Warden, 2003).
Comparatively, out of the 42 cases used in this study, 25 of those cases used an individual’s confession as evidence, which was later found to be not guilty. Ironically, other research studies indicate that defendants who recant their testimonies are still found to be guilty in the eyes of jurors (Drizin and Leo, 2004; Leo and Ofshe, 1998). Furthermore, while individuals who are guilty do confess in an effort to obtain a plea, research shows that innocent individuals confess to crimes they have not committed as well.
The establishment of findings from mock jury research and the wrongfully convicted indicate both mock jurors and real jurors view a confession as an admission of guilt, even when the confession is false by nature (Clark et al, 2010). However, police knowingly lie to suspects by telling them they have incriminating evidence against them in order to obtain a confession; thus the evidence of compliance and the standards by which it was obtained violates the rules of evidence regarding compliance (Clark et al, 2010).
In addition, the confession attitude scale (CAS) consisted of an 18 item self reporting measurement which was designed to evaluate how participants viewed the confessions obtained by police, in interrogations by suspects. The CAS scale was released in a short summary regarding legal attitude measurements; however, it has not been examined within the guidelines of published research (Wrightsman and Engelbrecht, 2004).
