Analysis Of Existing Compensation Bills And The Proposed Legislation Regarding Wrongful Conviction
In the USA, wrongful convictions were established to occur at a rate of 1-5% of the annual 10,000 convictions handed down. A wrongful conviction can be described as the conviction of persons who are factually innocent. In these cases, the people who have been convicted are found to be factually innocent following a testimony which indicates a flaw in the sentence or a DNA revelation evidence. Subsequently, if the conviction is established to be wrongful, the defendant is released from his/her charges, which indicate that the individual is criminal of the previously said charges. Although the person may be released from the initial repercussions and costs, the prison time and charges should be cleared form his records, to eliminate concerns of civil liability. Therefore, this paper aims to discuss the existing compensation bills or the proposed legislation regarding wrongful conviction, and deliberate the problems affecting the policies in addressing wrongful conviction.
Victim compensation bill
To eliminate or perhaps reduce the likeliness of occurrence of wrongful conviction, the Congress of the United States took a stand on the concern by enacting the Innocence Protection Act to reinforced the Justice for All Act in the year 2004. The bill enabled federal convicts with the right to appeal their sentences by utilizing the modern day technology to contest their convictions; for example, the use of DNA testing. The bill also encompassed the provision of financial incentives for the Judicial system and States around the nation to adopt similar legislation. Different states across the country control their own criminal justice procedures and process, which intervenes the issue of wrongful conviction with unlike remedies. There exist significant variations in the states legislations which have been adopted to limit the occurrence of wrongful conviction incidences over the past decades. The differences have created a situation in which innocent individuals who have been wrongfully accused of crimes may be less likely to be convicted, though this depends on the state in which the case is being disposed.
The research question, therefore, seeks to inquire why some states have instituted the bill which is objected at reducing the occurrence of such errors and other overlook and avoid the problem. More so, existing studies apart from a few exceptions do not address the issue. Accordingly, political sociology studies pointed out that the effect of wrongful conviction required legislative change. Furthermore, the studies indicated that the aspect of social and political climate should be considered while formulating the bill to be instituted to address the issue, classified as a social wrong. Again, few studies have researched the law differences from different states on the matter of wrongful conviction and why their failure to consider the advocacy efforts as well as political level in the context.
The problem that the policy aims to address
In the American criminal justice system is founded on the pillars of justice and fairness, which dictates the system before incarceration and conviction, meaning the system safeguards accused individuals of a crime and safeguard them against unreasonable seizures and searches, presumption of innocence during the proceeding, an adversarial system of justice, a right to speedy trial with a legal counsel and the right o jury trial. Before, the trial, individuals must be reminded of their rights, warnings, provided with a counsel and exclusion of any unconstitutional evidence. All these undertakings are aimed at ensuring justice and fairness. Nonetheless, despite the protection accorded, it may appear to be a just and fair system, but still innocent people are even sentenced to prison. Several factors may lead to wrongful conviction, for example, false confession, unreliable science, eyewitness misidentification, police misconduct, wrong evidence, ineffective counsels among others. Subsequently, hundreds of convicts have also been exonerated after being sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. In fact, in the US, exonerations are on the rise thanks to DNA testing advancements in providing concrete evidence. Accordingly, the increase of pardons forced the judicial system to avail DNA testing service to inmates, and it has proved that wrongful conviction indeed is prevalent.
Therefore, the paramount objective of a just system is to grant physical freedom, though it should necessitate monetary compensation. In essence, a fair and just government cannot just wrongfully deprive a person of his/her life, property or liberty without compensation. The government should accept the mistake of the judicial system and provide compensation, given that even the society acknowledges the occurrence of such errors. Compensation is also essential for maintaining public safety. For example, most of the exonerees who have been imprisoned encounter difficulty in finding a house after being freed. Lack of uniformity in all the states concern compensation bill is another factor to consider, besides the social, economic and procedural calculations in providing just compensation for a wrongfully convicted individual.
Implications and data about the policy
Wrongful conviction has many long-term and adverse effects on the individual, society and the criminal judicial system. About the individual, after falsely being imprisoned, he/she will encounter difficulties adjusting back to the nation since the community and family relationship has already been broken. For example, they have trouble securing employment. Exonerees may also suffer from health complications both mentally and physically. However, with the legal aid and compensation following a wrongful compensation will assist this individual to get back on their feet in the society. Concerning the criminal justice system, the bill will hold the courts responsible for wrongful incarceration. About the compensation bill, the monetary amount of rewards varies from state to state depending on the circumstance for incarceration and period of imprisonment. For example, the state of Wisconsin was established to have the lowest amount of reward, as low as $5,000 per year of incarceration, while Texas with the highest of over $80,000 per year. It is noteworthy to mention that the federal law, however, prohibits states to award compensation summing to over $100,000 per year, but if the wrongful conviction was a life sentence, the person should receive at least $50,000.
Throughout many of the states, compensations are not automatic following release, the compensation bills vary and some dictates that individuals should seek their reward after a certain period, or after their innocence is wholly demonstrated through convincing evidence or federal pardon. Also, in some states, those who were wrongfully convicted following false confession are not eligible for compensation. All in all, regardless of the amount of compensation received, the years lost will never be recovered, though it will be helpful.
Alternative solution and decision
Many people have been wrongly convicted, and after they are pardoned, they do not receive the required assistance or compensation on their return to the community. Therefore, it is fundamental that all states across the country should create a uniform legislature which ensures that all wrongfully convicted persons received assistance and their compensations upon release. The enactment of such a bill will prevent or diminish the occurrence of wrongful conviction in the future and at the same time hold the judicial system accountable for its actions.
A wrongful conviction is associated with numerous adverse effects on the person and the society alike. Consequently, it is essential for the federal government, the police and criminal justice system to reevaluate their interrogations, and examine false confessions. The bottom line is that no individual should be convicted wrongfully for a crime he/she did not commit. An additional policy should be enacted where the recording of interrogations and employment of specific investigation techniques to reduce the issue from happening. On the other hand, the criminal justice system should be held more responsible while exonerees should be aided in their return to the society through compensation statutes. Lastly, the policies enacted to reduce future risk of the matter should formulate strategies which eliminate the risk of false confession, poor interrogation, and evidence which lead to wrongful conviction.
