Exoneration

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. Attempts to exonerate convicts are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place. The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.

"Exonerated" redirects here. For the legal film, see The Exonerated.
Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Verdict
Sentencing
Post-sentencing
Related areas of law
Portals

The term "exoneration" also is used in criminal law to indicate a surety bail bond has been satisfied, completed, and exonerated. The judge orders the bond exonerated; the clerk of court time stamps the original bail bond power and indicates exonerated as the judicial order.

Based on DNA evidence

DNA evidence is a relatively new instrument of exoneration. The first convicted defendant from a United States prison to be released on account of DNA testing was David Vasquez, who had been convicted of homicide, in 1989. Recently, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate a number of persons either on death row or serving lengthy prison sentences. As of October 2003, the number of states authorizing convicts to request DNA testing on their behalf, since 1999, has increased from two to thirty. Access to DNA testing varies greatly by degree; post-conviction tests can be difficult to acquire. Organizations like the Innocence Project and Centurion are particularly concerned with the exoneration of those who have been convicted based on weak or faulty evidence, regardless of DNA evidence. As of October 2003, prosecutors of criminal cases must approve the defendant's request for DNA testing in certain cases.

Monday, April 23, 2007, Jerry Miller became the 200th person in the United States exonerated through the use of DNA evidence.[1] There is a national campaign in support of the formation of state Innocence Commissions, statewide entities that identify causes of wrongful convictions and develop state reforms that can improve the criminal justice system.

As of December 2018, 362 people in the U.S. had been exonerated based on DNA tests. In nearly half of these cases, faulty forensics contributed to the original conviction.[2]

Per February 4, 2014 NPR article, Laura Sullivan cited Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan law professor stating that exonerations were on the rise, and not just because of DNA evidence. Only one-fifth of the exonerations last year relied on newly tested DNA, a little less than a third of exonerations occurred due to further investigating by law enforcement agencies.[3]

According to a 2020 study, DNA exonerations in rape cases "strongly suggest that the wrongful-conviction rate is significantly higher among black convicts than white convicts."[4]

Exonerees after exoneration

Wrongful conviction has many social, economic, and psychological consequences for people later exonerated, especially for death row exonerees.[5]

After exoneration, some exonerees publicly have joined or formed organizations like Witness to Innocence and the Innocence Project to tell their stories as a form of advocacy against the death penalty, prison conditions, or other criminal justice issues.[6]

See also

References
  1. The Innocence Project - Know the Cases: Browse Profiles:Jerry Miller Archived April 3, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  2. Colloff, Pamela (20 December 2018). "Bloodstain Analysis Convinced a Jury She Stabbed Her 10-Year-Old Son. Now, Even Freedom Can't Give Her Back Her Life". propublica.org. ProPublica. Archived from the original on January 16, 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  3. Sullivan, Laura (4 Feb 2014). "Exonerations On The Rise, And Not Just Because Of DNA". NPR. Retrieved 4 February 2014.
  4. Bjerk, David; Helland, Eric (2020-05-01). "What Can DNA Exonerations Tell Us about Racial Differences in Wrongful-Conviction Rates?". The Journal of Law and Economics. 63 (2): 341–366. doi:10.1086/707080. hdl:10419/185297. ISSN 0022-2186. S2CID 51997973.
  5. Grechenig, Nicklisch & Thoeni, Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt – A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions under Uncertainty, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) 2010, vol. 7 (4), p. 847-867.
  6. Rajah, Valli (2021). "Enhancing the tellability of death-row exoneree narratives: Exploring the role of rhetoric". Punishment & Society: 1–19.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.