Issues Surrounding a Miscarriage of Justice - Essay Example

? Miscarriage of Justice Miscarriage of Justice A miscarriage of justice basically refers to a conviction or punishment wrongfully passed to an individual for a crime he/she has not committed (Layne, 2010, p.1). Several aspects characterize the presence of a miscarriage of justice as well as implications. In addition, consequences and remedial measures all form a complex perspective. It is important to note that currently, there are as many cases of wrongful conviction as they were fifty years ago. Miscarriage of justice also applies to civil cases, and possible errors of impunity. This implies that the issue is broad-spectrum as it incorporates both criminal and white collar crimes (McBannet, 1981, p.45). Certain indications in wrongful convictions portray synonymous characteristics to miscarriage of justice. A closer look at the events surrounding this issue reveals that the most injurious cases happen when a person faces wrongful conviction. The Criminal Justice system can also be faulted as wrong convictions hold for many years (Wilhouter et al, 2009, 2). It is unfortunate that innocent convicts can spend numerous years behind bars. Upon release, ex-convicts still suffer stigmatization in the society. The Guildford four and the Birmingham six serve as the best example of such cases. The most conspicuous aspect of controversy in such cases is generally embodied in the legality of the death penalty. Due to the alarming trend of wrongful convictions in the recent past, the legitimacy of the death penalty has constantly been reviewed. Critics and opponents of the drug penalty argue that innocent suspects are likely to suffer death for crimes they have not committed (Sanders & Young, 2007, p.10). The issue remains controversial because death is irreversible and nothing can be done to repair the damage of a wrong conviction. A common practice that has led to much emphasis on miscarriages of justice is the emergence of crucial DNA evidence that has helped clear many people from false accusations (Douglas, 2011, p.1). Forensic evidence has helped to exonerate innocent suspects and even wrongfully convicted prisoners. The pile up of unjust conviction cases led to the formation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997 (Rock, 2004, p.23). CCRC is deemed as the probable avenue towards success where the police, human rights institutions, and the courts have seemingly failed. A major cause for concern in this case, emanates from the fact that the above named institutions focus on errors that are somewhat premeditated (Lauden, 2006, p.98). This is mainly attributed to corruption. It means that given certain circumstances, a breach of ethics, laws, and common sense is usually evident. This is despite the fact that rejection of liberty stands out as a grave state sanction in the United Kingdom (Cater-Ruck, 1992, p.172). Most countries demand that whenever an individual is wrongfully convicted, and in the event suffers damage to himself or his family, he should be adequately compensated. However, compensation involves certain points of consideration that need to be verified before any progress on the same (Williams, 1999, 63). Common knowledge suggests that very few people will disagree with this assumption. On that note, it is important to look at issues surrounding a miscarriage of justice and how it possibly happens. Cases of biasness are common in the event of wrongful conviction and they include actions like unfair editing of evidence, fabrication of evidence by the police or the prosecution, issues of identification, contaminated evidence, and many other factors. Many people have been victims of the above implications and this has landed them several consequences which are regrettable since they happen to be innocent. Most people base their arguments on the harsh realities of death by execution in such cases but is should also be remembered that time spent in jail brings irreversible consequences to the person. Issues associated with miscarriage of justice should also be measured against harsh lengthy sentences and nasty sentence conditions (Trechsel, 2005, p.501). A better perspective of the matter can be obtained by first establishing the contributions made by an innocent person in relation to those made by officials in the criminal justice system. A grim picture is always painted whenever one assesses the relationship between a policeman and an innocent suspect. Most people fail to acknowledge that in most cases, innocence is of no essence in a court of law. This is in light of poor or no defense for suspects who cannot afford legal counsel. In fact, innocence only exists to make matters worse for a suspect who does not recognize the injustices of a faulty justice system. Many people do not fear being questioned by the police on any matter because they believe that they did no crime and the police will always find or establish the truth. As a result, they willingly give information to the police in a process that characterizes maximum cooperation (Lean, 2008, p.3). What these citizens should realize is the fact that police investigations do not necessarily target the separation of the innocent from the guilty. These investigations only exist to assist the police in gathering enough information that will be effective in securing a conviction. This amounts to a very big difference that the public should understand (Djikhorst, 2009, p.1). Normally, after the police identify a suspect they are always bound to come up with a certain conclusion regardless of whether the suspect is innocent or not. To them securing a conviction is usually the greatest goal (Lean, 2008). Therefore policemen only gather information that will help them support their conclusive remarks concerning a particular case. The police easily rubbish evidence that points towards the incrimination of other suspects who do not fit in their perceptions. In other words, they only seek evidence that will be effective in the process of backing up their established suspicion while ignoring all other aspects. The relationship between the police and the public during investigations remains a crucial issue that culminates into needs for compensation in the long run. The public should thus realize that their cooperation with the police has more to it than meets the eye. Such processes also happen in other areas of the criminal justice system but this one serves as the most common example. As earlier stated, cases of miscarriage of justice should be averted. Moreover, the victims need to be adequately compensated in relation to the damages that occur. Most countries conform to this form of compensation. This standard also falls within the precincts of common law (Yves, 2005, p.214). In order for compensation to take effect, there are certain factors that need to be considered. These factors are duly described by the law and it sometimes becomes difficult for the ordinary man to decipher (Walklate, 2008, p.58). In order to secure a compensation for a miscarriage of justice there must be a quashing and/or a pardon to the cases of these individuals. Compensation therefore follows the ruling by judges that a certain case qualifies as a miscarriage of justice. In order to settle for quashing and subsequent compensation, there needs to be newly discovered evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a person had been wrongfully convicted (Bodanski, 2002, 2). This indication suggests that the legal system in the United Kingdom can only compensate a limited number of people in any given time. Evidence pointing to this assertion specifically stems from the fact that only one out of 37 people in had their claims settled in the year 2009. The stakes involved in proving the innocence of a person are certainly high and serve to hinder the probability of compensating scores of people with the same issues (Stansburry, 2011). Miscarriage of justice can be comprehended in different ways according to the law. There are four specific considerations that would result in the court appeal quashing a conviction, especially after new evidence has been presented. In the first case, the evidence must prove that a defendant is completely innocent of the crime. It is also known as category one. In category two, the court of appeal relies on the fact that if the evidence happened to be present during trial, a reasonable panel would not have convicted the person. Category three states that quashing of a conviction becomes necessary if the new evidence presented could have put the whole process under certain risks with a varying type of verdict from the jury. This means that the jury could either put the defendant under conviction or free him on reasonable grounds. In category four, the court of appeal relies on issues that went terribly out of control during the investigative process and this resulted in the wrongful conviction of the defendant. It is thus important to establish the main reason that necessitates the issue of compensations for wrongful convictions. From a point of basic understanding, compensation justifies itself in the eyes of any rational being. It is quite obvious that a person who is wrongfully convicted should be compensated for damages and trauma caused. This is what the society would expect on any given occasion. Counter-arguments on the issue of common worldviews regarding compensation are likely to triumph in most cases. The processes of law do not recognize popular beliefs (Schabas, 2006, 537). However, capital punishment and the emergence of wrongful conviction cases serve to justify the necessity of compensation. International law also requires that every person who is wrongfully convicted should get adequate compensation for the damages inflicted on them. The International Criminal Court for instance, is supposed to compensate victims of wrongful compensation and so does all countries falling under the Rome Statute (McGoldrick, 1994, 412). It is expected that the ICC should make use of its general operating budget in compensating defendants. It is a good source of funding since it has positive effects on the institution (Rome Statute). Resources in the UK are subject to controversies due to their finite nature and this brings out a whole new dimension. In 1997, the Labor government found its pride in the establishment of the CCRC (Yithiha, 2004, 9). The institution is certainly better than nothing but there are several setbacks involved in its existence. The watch dog has certainly failed many citizens who are perceived to be innocent through certain points of view. It is important to acknowledge that instigating a review is an uphill task despite the availability of the right of appeal. This is because countless other factors are bound to interfere with the entire process (Marsh et al, 2004, p.109). However, the CCRC has only managed to secure compensations for a few cases while others are ignored. The body lacks funds that would ensure smooth running and also mechanisms that would avail funds for compensations in the entire justice system. Other factors include illiteracy, failure to access the services of a lawyer, and ignorance of critical rules by prisoners. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into existence on March 23, 1976. Its initiation was based on international cooperation in relation to the issue of human rights. Subsequently, most countries in the world adopted its principles and they were embedded in the various constitutions of these nations (Seniors et al, 2007). One of the most conspicuous items that were adopted was the compensation of Victims for wrongful arrest (Zedner, 2004, p.15). This observation still stands today and it is the cause of several wrangles in the judicial scene. Another debatable issue in the matter is whether, monetary compensation is bound to satisfy defendants completely (Grounds, 2005, p.16). This is important because no amount of compensation can totally heal the damages inflicted on the person. It only becomes a useful link that leads to the ultimate healing. Therefore, medical care, rehabilitation, and counseling should feature as additional factors. Miscarriage of justice is an unfortunate harsh reality. So far only 400 cases out of 13000 cases have been settled. States need effective measures to protect innocent citizens from miscarriages of justice and denial of compensation, in case unlawful arrests occur (Stammer, 1999, p.23). References Stansbury M. (2011). Demonstrating Innocence - Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice. Retrieved from:   William S. 2006. The UN International Criminal Tribunals. Cambridge University Press. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm. Bodansky, D. (2002). Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility. J. Int’l Law 833. Grounds, A. (2005). Understanding the Effects of Wrongful Imprisonment, 32 Crime & Justice. Yves, B. (2005) International Justice against Impunity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Yithiha S. (2004). Immunity and International Criminal Law. Ashgate Publishers. Lauden, L. (2006), Truth, Error and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McBarnett, D. (1981). Conviction: Law, the State and the Construction of Justice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Starmer, K. (1999). Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error. London: Blackstone Press Trechsel, S. (2005) Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings Oxford: Oxford University Press, Carter-Ruck, P 1992. Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander .London: Butterworths. Woolf H., Jowell, J. and Le Sueur, A. (1999) Principles of Judicial Review). London: Sweet & Maxwell. McGoldrick, D. (1994). The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douglas, H. 2011. The Prosecutor and Post-conviction Claims. DNA and Beyond   DijKhorst, K. 2009. The right of Silence, is the Game worth the Candle? Layne D. 2010. Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice. Retrieved from: Walklate, S., 2007. Imagining the victim of crime. Mainhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hilled. Williams, B., 1999. Working with victims of crime: policies, politics and practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd. Wolhuter, L., Olley, N. & Denham, D., 2009. Victimology: Victimization and Victims' rights. London: Routledge-Cavendish Zedner, L., 2004. Criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Senior, P. & Crowther-Dowey, C. & Long, M., 2007. Understanding Modernization in criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education. Sanders, A. & Young, R., 2007. Criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rock, P., 2004. Constructing Victims rights: the Home Office, New Labor, and victims. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marsh, I., Cochrane, J. & Melville, G., 2004. Criminal justice: an introduction to philosophies, theories and practice. London: Routledge. Read More