Compensation for Wrongful Convictions and the Innocence Continuum (original) (raw)
Related papers
The loss of innocence and the pursuit of compensation for the wrongly convicted
2017
Unlike the United Kingdom and a majority of the United States, there is no legislated right to compensation for wrongful convictions in Canada. For those who have suffered tremendous personal and financial damage as a result of a wrongful incarceration, the available remedies include the expensive and time-consuming routes of litigation for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation and a Charter breach, or the highly-politicized exercise of mercy by a government to make an ex gratia payment. While the State’s failure to prove guilt in the criminal justice process as a fundamental operation of the presumption of innocence should provide relief to an accused in the pursuit of financial redress from a wrongful conviction, the requirement that evidence of factual innocence be adduced is a burden few can meet. While the Supreme Court of Canada has taken a broader approach than other common law jurisdictions in allowing law suits to proceed seeking compensation against police, the Cr...
Exoneration and Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted: Enhancing Procedural Justice
Manitoba Law Journal 42(3), 2019
Miscarriages of justice, 1 in the form of wrongful convictions, are evidence of the failings of the criminal justice system. The revolution sparked by the potential of DNA forensic analysis in the 1990s demonstrates on an almost daily basis that errors are frequently made and innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Furthermore, a growing body of what has been termed innocence scholarship has evinced a discernible number of contributing factors that have influenced wrongful convictions. Despite the fact that this literature has established that those factors routinely cause wrongful convictions, the means to exoneration and compensation are fraught with legal and procedural obstacles. While it has been argued elsewhere that a wrongful conviction, in and of itself ultimately raise questions of legitimacy, 2 the focus of this essay will be on understanding how access to and availability of schemes of post-conviction review and compensation in Canada also raise similar questions.
Compensating the Innocent Accused
1976
Plenal law governs the strongest force that we permit official agencies to bring to bear on individuals. Its promise as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to destroy.** The United States has lagged far behind many nations' in its failure to compensate the innocent victims of erroneous criminal accusations. Despite the relatively advanced development of tort law in the United States, no American jurisdiction presently provides for public compensation to an innocent person who has been duly acquitted, or against whom all criminal charges have been dismissed or dropped. 2 Indeed, only the federal government and four states have statutes that in certain circumstances provide for compensation to a person imprisoned after conviction for a crime that he did not commit. 3 Damages resulting from a formal criminal accusation can be
Civil litigation at its best is a lengthy, onerous, and expensive proposition for a recently exonerated individual to pursue in the hope of mcovering compensation for the harms caused by a wrongful conviction. In the event that such an individual can fimd an anion, the claim will include as party defendants the offending police officer, crown counsel and their employers being some agency of the State At common law it will be the individual police officer d crown attorney who will be preswnptivelv liable to (he plaintiff for financial recovery. Legislation has been enacted in the provinces and territories together with the federal government w implement vicarious liability to the State. [hat vicarious liability and consequent indemnity however is shaped by the exigencies olcollective bargaining agreements, internal policy statements and errors and omissions insurance. lanocence Compensation: Vicarious Liability and Indemnlrication by the State for the ilanna Causal by Wrongful Convictions KEYWORDS lnnoccnw compensation, icanous ltability, state tnckmnilicalion, wrongful convictions. FULL TEXT: XML tESPANOI tAHGENTlNA) REFBACKS There an currently no retbacks.
Statutory Compensation for the Wrongly Imprisoned
Social Work, 2016
This article provides an overview of the unique challenges faced by men and women who have been wrongly convicted, imprisoned, and subsequently exonerated, and discusses the relevance of social work to exoneration. The ways in which exonerees can seek compensation are described, and state compensation statutes are examined, delineating monetary and reentry support provisions. Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia have compensation statutes. Monetary and reentry support provisions vary greatly by state, with few providing both. The wrongly imprisoned experience the same effects of incarceration as other prisoners; their psychological trauma, however, is exacerbated by the fact that they are innocent. Furthermore, upon release, exonerees have fewer reentry supports available to them compared with prisoners released on parole. This article supports the position that the state has a responsibility to provide adequate compensation, monetarily and servicewise, to the wrongly imprisoned, and that compensation by statutory means should be standard in every state. This article also highlights how social workers are uniquely qualified to provide immediate and long-term social and mental health services to exonerees, as well as to advocate for comprehensive exoneree compensation through state statutes.
The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions -A Comparative Study with Case Analyses
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2015
Instances of wrongful conviction have the nature of universality and latency. The determination of wrongful conviction has the nature of ambiguousness and antagonism. The facts behind a case of wrongful conviction are not always black-and-white; sometimes there is a grey zone, meaning that there is no way to determine with accuracy whether the defendant is guilty or not. As a result, the rectification of wrongful conviction becomes very difficult. In the case of Hugejiletu, for example, although the true perpetrator came out in 2005, the wrongful conviction had not been corrected by the court until the end of 2014. Therefore, the standard of proof for redressing wrongful convictions needs to be clarified. Through case analyses of the standard in USA, UK and Germany, we can see that the standard for redressing wrongful convictions are different from the standard for convictions, with the former being generally lower than the latter. We should restate the standard of proof for redressing wrongful convictions in Chinese criminal proceedings, and make distinctions between the standard for starting a retrial, the standard for redressing a wrongful conviction, and the standard for awarding a state compensation.
Prosecuting the Exonerated: Actual Innocence and the Double Jeopardy Clause
In certain circumstances, a prisoner who challenges her conviction must convince a court that she is actually innocent in order to get relief. Unfortunately, such judicial exonerations often fail to persuade prosecutors, who are generally free to retry prisoners who successfully challenge their convictions. There have been several instances in which prisoners have convinced courts of their innocence and overturned their convictions, only to have prosecutors bring the exact same charges against them a second time. This Article argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects these exonerated defendants from the ordeal of a second prosecution. Permitting prosecutors to continue to pursue such individuals contradicts established Supreme Court case law, violates the policies animating the Double Jeopardy Clause, and impairs the operation of the criminal justice system.
The Growing Acknowledgement of Wrongful Conviction
Victoria University Law and Justice Journal, 2013
The wrongful conviction of innocent people is being acknowledged in an increasing number of countries around the world. The problem of wrongful conviction is now framed as an international human rights issue. More attention is being given to whether criminal justice systems are providing sufficient measures for the effective review and rectification of wrongful convictions and whether international obligations in that regard are being met. England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Canada and the United States have substantial new mechanisms in place to better identify and correct wrongful convictions but Australia has been slower to respond. While some Australian states have introduced reforms such as DNA innocence testing and a new appeal avenue, many issues remain as highlighted in recent debates as to whether Australia should establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Public perception of wrongful conviction: Support for compensation and apologies
Albany law review
With over 280 post-conviction DNA exonerations through Innocence Projects in the United States alone and half a dozen Commissions of Inquiry into wrongful convictions in Canada, the public may be more aware of wrongful convictions than ever before. Recent research, however, has documented the paucity of resources available post-conviction for individuals who have been wrongly convicted, the limited and financial focus of current compensation statutes, the many difficulties in obtaining compensation, and the desire of many individuals who have been wrongly convicted to receive an apology for the injustices they have suffered. To investigate public perception of compensation, face-to-face interviews were conducted with fifteen community members. Findings suggest that all interviewees believed that individuals who have been wrongly convicted should receive compensation and apologies. Many felt these individuals needed financial compensation in order to start over, and that they deserve...
Compensation Statutes and Post-Exoneration Offending
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2013
Utilizing a data set of exonerees compiled from the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, this study tracks the behavior of 118 exonerees following their releases and examines the effects of more than twenty variables on the exonerees' post-release criminality. We present here our findings on the effect of victim-compensation statutes on post-exoneration offending. When treated as a dichotomous variable, compensation has no apparent effect. When treated as a continuous variable, however, a pattern emerges. Exonerees who are compensated above a threshold amount of $500,000 commit offenses at a significantly lower rate than those who are either not compensated or compensated beneath the threshold. Prior critiques have called for more and better compensation statutes on grounds of fairness. Needless to say, the fairness