scholarly journals Advocacy and the Innocent Client

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Caroline Erentzen ◽  
Regina Schuller ◽  
Kimberley Clow
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Small Proportion ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
Canadian Context ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Defence Counsel ◽  
Systemic Problems

Much of our knowledge about wrongful convictions is derived from known exonerations, which typically involve serious violent offences and lengthy sentences. These represent only a small proportion of offences prosecuted in Canada each year, and little is known about how often innocent defendants may be wrongfully convicted of less serious offences. Recent discussions have begun to focus on the problem of false guilty pleas, in which defendants choose to  plead guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the time and cost required to defend their innocence. The majority of our knowledge of the factors contributing to wrongful convictions is based on American scholarship, with less empirical research exploring wrongful convictions within the Canadian context. The present research surveyed Canadian criminal defence lawyers about their experiences representing innocent clients, including their perspective on the underlying causes of wrongful convictions in Canada and their recommendations for reform to the criminal justice system. Nearly two-thirds of defence counsel in this study reported that they had represented at least one client who was convicted despite credible claims of innocence. Many reported that they regularly see innocent clients choose to enter a strategic false guilty plea, perceiving no meaningful or realistic alternative. Counsel described a system designed to elicit a guilty plea, with lengthy pre-trial delays, routine denial of bail, inadequate funding of Legal Aid, costly defence options, padded charges, and false evidence ploys. This research expands our knowledge of wrongful convictions in Canada, their hidden prevalence, and systemic problems that increase the likelihood of their occurrence.

The Criminology of Wrongful Conviction

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Leo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Cause Analysis ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Improve Accuracy ◽  
Current Article ◽  
To Come

This article reflects on the author’s 2005 article, “Rethinking the Study of Miscarriages of Justice,” which sought to describe what scholars empirically knew at that time about the phenomenon, causes, and consequences of wrongful convictions in America. The 2005 article argued that the study of wrongful convictions constituted a coherent academic field of study and set forth a vision for a more sophisticated, insightful, and generalizable criminology of wrongful conviction. In this current article, the author revisits the ideas first developed in “Rethinking the Study of Miscarriages of Justice” to evaluate what scholars have learned about wrongful convictions in the last decade, and what challenges lie ahead for developing a more robust criminology of wrongful conviction. The article concludes that there have been significant theoretical, methodological, and substantive advances in the last decade, but that a root cause analysis of wrongful convictions has yet to come to fruition and urges empirical scholars to begin to study other sources of error and inaccuracy in the criminal justice system. Scholars should develop a criminology of erroneous outcomes, not just of erroneous conviction. By studying both sets of outcomes, scholars can improve accuracy and reduce errors across the board.

Comparing Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial Procedures

2019 ◽  
pp. 702-727
Author(s):  
Gwladys Gilliéron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
The U.S

This chapter compares U.S. plea bargaining with plea-bargaining-type procedures and penal orders in Continental Europe, with reference to Switzerland, Germany, and France. It first considers consensual criminal procedures across jurisdictions and why they exist, focusing on plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system and abbreviated trial procedures in European civil law systems. It then examines the extent to which abbreviated trial procedures in civil law systems differ from plea bargaining in the U.S. system, the problems inherent in consensual criminal procedures, and the question of whether there are any solutions. In particular, it explains how plea bargaining and penal orders may lead to wrongful convictions. Finally, it discusses prospects for reform of plea bargaining in the United States and in civil law systems in Europe.

The Protection of the Accused from Miscarriage of Justice

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 590-611
Author(s):  
A.A.S. Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Small Proportion ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

The criminal trial system is regarded as standing at the pinnacle of the state's machinery for dealing with crime. But the courts deal with only a small proportion of crimes committed. Their function is more indirect: to express societal disapproval through a public and somewhat theatrical show. This is not to denigrate the role of the courts or dismiss it as futile. The criminal trial does have important functions in the development of norms for criminal responsibility and in fostering respect for the law. But its success in this regard hinges on the extent to which it is perceived as a just and effective method for dealing with those charged with crime. Put crudely, the success of the criminal justice system turns in large measure in the success of the show it puts on. But theatre is good only for as long as it is able to carry the audience with it, which, in the case of the courts, this means as long as the public is prepared to accept their verdicts at face value.

scholarly journals PELAKSANAAN PEMENUHAN HAK NARAPIDANA ANAK DI LEMBAGA PEMBINAAN KHUSUS ANAK KELAS IA TANGERANG

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100
Author(s):  
Nugroho Adipradana ◽  
Erwin Adipradipto ◽  
Tisa Windayani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Correctional Facility ◽  
Correctional Facilities ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Education Access ◽  
Access To Health

Abstract In criminal justice system, it is important to make sure that the rights of the inmates are both protected and properly fulfilled. This is even more essential in the case of inmate children, bearing in mind all the aspects attached on them. The rights are regulated in the Art.4 of Law No. 11/2012 on Criminal Justice System for Children’s Court and and also Art 22 Law No 12/1995 on Correctional Institution. This research observes and analyzes how is the implementation of those rights in Special Correctional Facilities for Children Class 1A Tangerang. The method used is yuridis-empiris which dominated by observation and interviews. The result of the study is that the Special Correctional Facility observed has carried out the rights for inmate children in a suffice manner which comprises right for education, access to health, legal aid, access to information and others.

scholarly journals Wrongful Convictions and Erroneous Acquittals: Applying Packer’s Model to Examine Public Perceptions of Judicial Errors in Australia

2021 ◽  
pp. 0306624X2110668
Author(s):  
Harley Williamson ◽  
Mai Sato ◽  
Rachel Dioso-Villa
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Social Attitudes ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Judicial Errors

The fallible nature of the criminal justice system continues to see judicial errors—that is, wrongful convictions and erroneous acquittals—undermine its integrity, efficacy, and legitimacy. Public perceptions of judicial errors are important contributors to criminal justice policy and reforms. The current study utilizes the 2016 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) dataset to examine public attitudes toward judicial errors. It applies Herbert Packer’s crime control and due process models to understand how concerns around procedural safeguards and public safety are associated with public perceptions toward judicial errors. Packer’s model has been challenged by studies, which theorize that the models are not mutually exclusive. Yet, they have not been empirically tested in this context, which is a gap this study seeks to fill. Findings show that due process and crime control concerns shape public attitudes toward wrongful convictions and challenge the notion that Packer’s models be applied on a continuum.

scholarly journals Threaten Sentencing Enhancement, Coerce Plea, (Wash, Rinse,) Repeat

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-302
Author(s):  
Wes Reber Porter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Trojan Horse ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Clean Break ◽  
The Individual

Our American criminal justice system is too often described as broken. It was not a clean break in a single, isolated location. Instead, our criminal justice system suffers from many, many little nicks, bumps, and bruises at the hands of its keepers. The evolution of sentencing enhancements within our criminal justice system represents the latest nagging, reoccurring injury. In the ultimate Trojan horse to criminal defendants, the Supreme Court sought to protect the individual rights of the accused with its recent decisions on sentencing enhancements. But at the hands of lawmakers, the judiciary, and prosecutors, criminal defendants suffer more. Our criminal justice system also suffers from practices related to sentencing enhancements and the resulting wave of wrongful convictions by guilty plea.

Trials in absentia and the cuts to criminal legal aid

2014 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 486-510
Author(s):  
Paul Willey
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Irreparable Damage

The swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid may do irreparable damage to the defence side of the equality of arms. Coupled with this, the case of R v Jones gives the judge discretion to try in the defendant’s absence without representation or being present as a litigant-in-person. It is arguable that the defendant’s right to be heard will be chipped away at until the defence side is left legally crippled. The enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is insular and neglects the defendant’s rights systemically. Without an adequate defence, squalid injustice will permeate and reverberate throughout the criminal justice system. Defendants cannot be corralled into court without the assistance of an advocate. The impact of the cuts falls on the litigant-in-person, thereby delimiting access to justice. Thus it disallows the opportunity to raise a proper defence. The sequela of the attack against the defence is a retreat back to the pre-1690s when defendants had very limited chances of being represented. Expense should not quell the right to be heard. Will the 2012 Act administer the coup de grace to the right to be heard or will Magna Carta be a heaven-sent ancient bulwark against this threat?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document