The Truth Project

2021 ◽  
pp. 0261927X2110678
Author(s):  
David M. Markowitz ◽  
Kate G. Blackburn ◽  
Keya Saxena ◽  
Jade Marion ◽  
Omar Olivarez ◽  
...  

The United States Constitution grants Americans the “right to a speedy and public trial,” with an assumption that the trial is impartial and fair. Recent data suggest a nontrivial number of cases fail to meet this standard. During interrogations, suspects can be presented with false evidence, long interrogations can undermine a suspect’s cognitive ability, and minimization tactics often mislead suspects into believing justice is on their side. These dynamics facilitate false confessions and wrongful convictions, which are common in the United States and globally. We argue the current approaches to understand and predict innocence in legal cases are insufficient and interdisciplinary research is required to prevent innocent people from going to jail. In this review, we cover research on wrongful convictions and false confessions, ending with The Truth Project ( www.truth-project.io ), a new global framework to connect scholars and facilitate research into behavioral patterns of innocence.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Kate Blackburn ◽  
Keya Saxena ◽  
Jade Marion ◽  
Omar Olivarez ◽  
...  

The United States Constitution grants Americans the “right to a speedy and public trial,” with an assumption that the trial is impartial and fair. Recent data suggest a nontrivial number of cases fail to meet this standard. During interrogations, suspects can be presented with false evidence, long interrogations can undermine a suspect’s cognitive ability, and minimization tactics often mislead suspects into believing justice is on their side. These dynamics facilitate false confessions and wrongful convictions, which are common in the United States and globally. We argue that the current approaches to understand and predict innocence in legal cases are insufficient and interdisciplinary research is required to prevent innocent people from going to jail. In this review, we cover research on wrongful convictions and false confessions, ending with The Truth Project (www.truth-project.io), a new global framework to connect scholars and facilitate research into behavioral patterns of innocence.


This chapter presents the conclusions to the book. It discusses ideas for the future of the off-campus student-speech jurisprudence. This discussion includes guidance for school officials and students on how to navigate the jurisprudence. The discussion urges school officials to exercise censorship restraint when confronted with off-campus student speech unless the speech constitutes a true threat. It also implores school officials and lower courts to treat students as citizens entitled to the right to free speech under the United States Constitution. Consonantly, the chapter recommends that school officials leave censorship of off-campus speech to law enforcement as well as the civil and criminal judicial processes as obtains for the citizenry at large. The goal of the chapter is to recommend ideas that students, school officials and lower courts can consider in order to minimize the abridgement of students' right to speech in off-campus settings.


2005 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Celestine Richards McConville

It is no secret that capital cases in the United States are far from error free. According to a recent study, the two most common errors in capital cases are “egregiously incompetent defense lawyering” and “prosecutorial suppression of evidence that the defendant is innocent or does not deserve the death penalty.” Other errors include inaccurate eyewitness testimony, perjured testimony, and false confessions, just to name a few. And, since 1973, no fewer than 117 capital inmates have been released from death row because errors such as these camouflaged their innocence.


2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 687-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredericke Leuschner ◽  
Martin Rettenberger ◽  
Axel Dessecker

Although in the United States wrongful convictions and imprisonments are a major public and scientific concern, this topic has been largely ignored in Germany for decades. The present article offers for the first time an overview of all accessible German cases of successful retrials involving convicted persons who served a prison sentence since 1990. The data refer to 31 wrongfully convicted persons in 29 independent cases. Although the largest group consists of cases of false allegations, some of the wrongly convicted were considered not guilty by reason of insanity, and a few wrongful convictions occurred because of eyewitness misidentification and false confessions. In addition, incorrect expert testimony contributed considerably to the wrongful conviction in some cases.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon L Bang ◽  
Duane Stanton ◽  
Craig Hemmens ◽  
Mary K Stohr

The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in its seminal case Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) that police used overly coercive techniques during custodial interrogations to obtain confessions. Yet, post Miranda, police officers still utilize legal coercive and deceptive techniques during custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, some of these techniques have proven to be so coercive that they lead to false confessions and innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Some states have taken measures to protect the accused during custodial interrogations and require the police to record custodial interrogations under certain conditions. The policies and procedures that mandate interrogation recording vary in scope and by state. This article sheds light on the different statutes and policies implemented at the state level that regulate custodial interrogation recording.


Author(s):  
Floyd Beachum

The words diversity and multiculturalism are ubiquitous in the contemporary educational lexicon. They are certainly hallmarks in many educational conversations. Recent trials, tribulations, and triumphs in the areas of diversity and multiculturalism are not without historical context or educational precedent. The evolution of diversity and multiculturalism in the United States has been and continues to be a struggle. The lofty language that is immortalized in the United States Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance promises all U.S. citizens the right to life, liberty, safety, happiness, and so forth. However, this promise has not always been kept for all U.S. citizens. The full recognition of one’s rights in the United States has depended on one’s race/ethnicity, gender, social class, religious beliefs, ability status, and so forth. Consequently, the United States has also denied, ostracized, and oppressed groups of people based on these same aforementioned identities (e.g., slavery, segregation, sexism, etc.). This resulted in amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the American Civil Rights Movement, and the Women’s Rights Movement, as well as others. These movements were no panacea; they simply weakened overt manifestations of bias, and allowed for more nuanced, covert, and/or institutionalized forms of bias. The elimination of overt bias also creates the illusion of success. People begin to think that the problems are solved because they are not obvious anymore. This highlights the need for diversity and multiculturalism in order to identify and expose covert bias and remind people that the struggles of the past are not just part of history; they undergird the problems we face today (e.g., achievement gaps, disproportionate discipline, and misidentification for special education). Ultimately, diversity/multiculturalism has the ability to provide a kind of interconnectedness among people by having them face the perplexing problems of equity, equality, social identity, and personal philosophy. Embracing and understanding diversity/multiculturalism is the key to unlocking its transformational power.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Paula A. Monopoli

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. —U.S. Const. amend. XIX On August 26, 1920, these words became part of the United States Constitution as its Nineteenth Amendment. The requisite thirty-six states had ratified the amendment in the year since its enactment by Congress on June 4, 1919. A revolution in women’s rights, spanning over seventy years, came to a quiet conclusion as Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby signed the measure into law in the privacy of his home at eight o’clock in the morning....


Author(s):  
Adam I. Attwood

This chapter provides historical analysis of the United States Women's Bureau focusing on its role in women's rights, immigration, and economic advancement in the United States from 1917-1930. The decade of the 1920s dawned on August 18, 1920 with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution granting women the right to vote in every state. But there was another, less known victory that had already occurred on June 5, 1920, one that was pivotal in the trajectory of the next phase of the women's rights movement throughout the 1920s: House Resolution 13229.


ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Turner

AbstractIn its landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges a five-Justice majority of the United States Supreme Court held that state laws depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Four dissenting Justices - Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr - criticized the majority’s ruling and analysis. Calling for judicial self-restraint and deference to the outcomes of democratic decision-making, the dissenters argued that same-sex marriage bans enacted by state legislatures did not violate the Constitution. This essay argues and demonstrates that the Obergefell dissenters have not restrained themselves in other cases in which they voted to strike down legislative enactments and did not defer to democratic decision-making. This selective restraint reveals that the dissenters have not been unwaveringly committed to judicial self-restraint, and raises the central question of when should the Court defer to legislatures in cases presenting constitutional challenges to state or federal laws.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document