The Wrong Convictions Made by the Governments of the United States and Canada - Term Paper Example

Introduction In October 2009, after the Manitoba Crown decided the evidence was not enough for a retrial, the Manitoba Court acquitted Kyle Unger andthe latter walked away a free man. (CBC News, 2009) The reprieve came seventeen (17) years after Kyle and Timothy Houlahan were convicted of first-degree murder in connection with the death of one 16-year old Brigitte Grenier. The Unger case is just one out of twelve high-profile cases in Canadian history where Canadian courts had given wrongful convictions. Unfortunately for these jailed innocents, the courts do not seem willing to correct their erroneous convictions or compensate for mistakes in their judgment. Because of this behavior, civic groups have formed to help victims of wrongful convictions attain the truth about the case and, consequently, their freedom. AIDWYC or the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted is one such group. AIDWYC is a nonprofit legal organization that has developed a well-earned reputation as the advocate for those like Kyle Unger who were wrongly convicted by the Canadian courts. (AIDWYC, 1999-2010) It was founded in 1993 to support Guy Paul Morin who was a victim of erroneous court judgment in 1992. If someone believes they were wrongly convicted, they send their application to AIDWYC which reviews it and determines whether the case merits the organization’s assistance. The association’s goals are to “eradicate the conditions that can cause miscarriages of justice; and to participate in the review and if warranted, correction of wrongful convictions.” (AIDWYC, 1999 – 2010) Because of its limited resources, AIDWYC is focused mainly on homicide cases because those carry the longest sentences. My role in AIDWYC was varied. I was a volunteer and completed assigned tasks at home. Once every three weeks, I visited the AIDWYC office and did such work as reviewing successful appeal cases against convictions, researching information on cases of particular individuals and organizing data under specific variables on an excel sheet on cases of particular individuals. At times I also reviewed cases to determine whether AIDWYC can be of assistance Handing out wrongful convictions is not new to society. “In Canada, there have been many high-profile wrongful convictions uncovered in the past two decades.” (Tewfik, M., 2008) While wrongful convictions in Great Britain may be as many as 15 cases yearly, records from the Criminal Justice Research Center show that as many as 6,000 persons yearly are wrongfully convicted in the United States. (Rosen, P., 1992) One would expect that once justice has not been served, those in power would be more than willing to immediately rectify the error and “right their wrong”, so to speak. Sadly, however, this is not the case. The principle of self-interest has somehow influenced the governments’ conduct when making an erroneous conviction. An institution under constant scrutiny, governments have been hiding behind mechanisms and judicial protocols to avoid losing face. They know that because it is their duty to protect their public, the people think of them as credible pillars of justice. Regrettably, because of this image, governments do anything in their power to get away with wrongful convictions. By sharing my experiences at my placement, this paper will aim to illustrate the wrong convictions made by the governments of the United States and Canada and how these nations stubbornly kept a blind eye to evidences which eventually served to prove their rulings wrong. At the same time, this paper will also briefly reflect on the sociological theory of self-interest in relation to these experiences and how the principle affects the governments’ execution of justice. Finally, the paper will attempt to make recommendations on how to lessen and consequently eradicate wrongful convictions. Theoretical Background Gordon Tullock from the University of Arizona writes “the average human is 95 percent selfish in the narrow sense of the term.” (Frank, R., 2005) This is very evident in government. Political man, no less than economic man, acts in his own selfish interest. (Udehn, L., 1996) Man therefore would only want what can be good for him. We can safely assume then that man would do whatever it is in his power to refuse or reject what could be bad for him. The theory of self-interest then would be obvious in a social relationship where one powerful party which has committed a great grievance uses all the means available to still maintain power and prestige even at the expense of the other party. Governments that are unwilling to apologize and free the wrongly convicted as this act undermines the credibility of their justice system seem to be grounded in this theory of self-interest. An admittance of a wrong conviction years after the innocent has suffered psychological and emotional trauma in prison shows the public that the nation’s justice system has failed in doing its job – serving justice. Because this would be detrimental to the government and its justice system, both institutions have done all they can to prevent reversals of wrongful convictions. Mechanisms in the judicial system have made it almost impossible for those wrongly convicted to gain back their freedom and to be rightfully deemed innocent in the eyes of society. Experiences It has been said that every time someone is convicted of an offence for which they are innocent, the justice system fails in three ways: first, by inflicting unjustifiable harm on the wrongfully convicted person; secondly, by allowing the actual perpetrators of the crime to remain free to victimize others, and; thirdly, by re-victimizing the victim or his or her family by undoing the emotional closure that has already taken place. (Bajer, R. and Trepanier, M., 2007) Because it is run by humans, there can be no faultless justice system. The stories of wrongful convictions can be “grouped according to some of the variables that are generally recognized as major contributing factors – presumed guilt, mistaken identification, ineffective counsel, eyewitness perjury, false confessions, police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, fabrication of evidence and forensics.” (Christianson, S., 2004) A closer look will show that these contributing factors are caused by human errors. This is understandable. Nobody is perfect. Even the most meticulous prosecutor, police officer, judge or jury can make mistakes. What is unacceptable and bordering on absurd, however, is the fact that the very system which should uphold justice is the same one withholding justice when it matters the most. The justice systems’ inability to eradicate wrongful convictions - or at the very least rectify any they have made – has made the public question the oft-spoken maxims of the courts. When the innocents have been convicted even without proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, did justice really prevail? My work with AIDWYC has made me privy to the countless cases of injustice caused by wrongful convictions. The realization has brought anger and frustration to people like myself who want to be part of the legal system actually committing these grievances. While at AIDWYC, I had received a lot of updates on the Romeo Phillion case since it was our organization representing him. (Journal 4) Charged with murder, Phillion had spent more than 30 years in jail before his murder charge was withdrawn by the courts. Although DNA testing of newly-discovered evidence could have led to his acquittal, the Canadian courts would not allow for a retrial. Instead, Ontario Superior Court Judge Lynn Ratushny claimed the past “miscarriage of justice has already been rectified by a quashing of the conviction.” (Seymour, A., 2010) In response to claims that the courts were not giving Phillion a chance to plead not guilty, Ratushny further writes, “The result is that while there are grounds upon which to disagree with the way in which the Crown has chosen to end this case, the very essence of the principles of independence that underwrite prosecutorial discretion preclude me, and correctly so in my view, from interfering with the way in which the Crown has chosen to exercise its discretion.” (Seymour, A., 2010) The principle of self-interest implies that man will employ means available to him to further his personal interests. “The idea that people try to maximize their personal gain when interacting with others” (Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T., 1988) is very common in social relationships, even in the justice system where fairness should rule. This is exactly what happened in the Phillion case. To avoid putting the justice system in a bad light, Ratushny decided in favor of the prosecution thereby preventing Phillion to prove he had been innocent all along. Another show of self-interest is how some judges behave whenever there is a plea for an appeal. The following are pertinent cases I was asked to read about during my stay with AIDWYC. One was about a Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who refused an appeal from Troy Davis, convicted of murder, despite new evidence that can prove Davis was not the killer. (Journal 4) The judge claimed that inasmuch as Davis was given a “fair trial”, new evidence proving he was actually innocent can not make the court reverse its decision. (Campos, P., 2009) This way of thinking is both disheartening and cruel as an innocent man will stay on death row just because the government wants to show it is doing its job. The second case was actually included in a book called “Actual Innocence” which I was required to read at AIDWYC. Despite the combined efforts of the prosecuting team and defense lawyers, the courts had been unwilling to entertain Walter Snyder’s motion for release due to a technicality. (Journal 8) Snyder’s request was filed after the 21-day period allowed by the courts to prove one’s innocence. Seven years in jail and Snyder was released due to public outrage, not because the DNA testing done suggested his innocence. The rule pretty much says that if one was not able to prove his innocence in 21 days, he will stay in jail despite any exonerating evidence that would be later discovered. This serves as another mechanism courts have employed to avoid acknowledging their mistake in conviction. In the above-mentioned examples, the governments have once again shown that the justice system will do anything to preserve its image of an intellectual institution – one that makes decisions based on established procedure and not just on “feelings” of what is right or wrong. (Campos, P., 2009) Self-interest is evident in how the governments, through their justice systems, has given more weight on implementing legal mechanisms to avoid acknowledging that they had actually sentenced a man to death without enough evidence. During my placement at AIDWYC, another task assigned to me was of reviewing monthly decisions of cases of appeals against convictions in Ontario. After seeing that there had only been two successful appeals out of the approximately 40 criminal cases heard by the courts in October 2006 alone, I started realizing a pattern. (Journal 6 or 7?) The numbers seemed to show that the ratio of successful appeal cases to the total number of cases was drastically low. Again, the self-interest model is very evident as the courts have only granted appeals in very few cases because allowing appeals would mean they had actually made a mistake in the first trial and this was the very thing they did not want to admit. Surprisingly, the courts not only fail in providing true justice for the innocent. They also fail in rewarding those who, after wasting their life in jail, have been acquitted of the crime they were wrongly convicted for. During my placement at AIDWYC, I met with one of the board of directors, Christine Sanchez, who shared that there have been a number of cases where governments do not want to compensate the victims of wrong conviction. (Journal #?) It seems it is the courts’ opinion that to grant compensation is further admitting their faulty judgment because they are now paying for damages. For the wrongly convicted, compensation is symbolic, equivalent to a statement of their innocence. Sadly, this is exactly why the governments balk at giving compensation. The latter symbolizes that the courts, a prestigious institution, made a mistake that could have cost an innocent man his life. As if serving in jail was not bad enough, those freed and wanting compensation need to prove they had incurred negative effects. Although no one should prove the damages as a result of being wrongly convicted and jailed as the gravest of these effects is psychological and hard to prove, the wrongly convicted have to. The courts would not grant them damages otherwise. Again, the governments have found a way to avoid a show of concession. The Anthony Hanemayer case is one such show of the government’s refusal to pay, literally, for their mistake. Attorney General Chris Bentley said that compensation for Hanemaayer was inappropriate as “an acquittal alone is insufficient to demonstrate a person is entitled to damages” (Mealing, T., 2010).This is utterly disturbing. Hanemaayer had been spent 17 months in jail because of the courts’ mistake. Now that he is free, the courts do not want to compensate for the stress and anxiety they had caused him. Moreover and a more appalling behavior, if compensation is granted, some cases show that the U.S. and the U.K. deduct boarding and food money from the successful complainants. This action puts the government in a bad light as it appears they are getting payback when it is precisely their fault that the wrongly convicted had received free food and lodging as an inmate. From the cases I was asked to review at AIDWYC, there was that of Henry Watkins Skinner, a Texan who was already scheduled for the death chamber because the state’s Board of Pardon and Parole had rejected his request for a DNA test. (Journal 10) Skinner, maintaining his innocence since the beginning, was certain that evidence from the crime which were untested for DNA could exonerate him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided on a stay an hour before the scheduled execution (Malandain, L., 2010), an act both rare and telling of how the justice system look out for each other. The Supreme Court rarely interferes with a lower court’s decision as this implies an erroneous decision needing review. The more often the Supreme Court interferes, the more mistakes people learn about. If this happens, the justice system would not look as credible as it is perceived to be. The higher court’s decision, however, does not mean Skinner’s DNA testing request has been allowed. For Skinner, the stay just means another day wondering if the new evidence can prove can indeed provide the truth. Recommendation In one article given to me by Christine Sanchez of AIDWYC during my employment with them, it was suggested that an independent body would be in a better position to review and decide on wrongful convictions (Journal 7). I agree as the independent body would primarily focus on any errors committed and search for the actual truth without distractions. Also, this way there is no image that needs to be “saved” in reversing any incorrect convictions. On the other hand, if reviews were done by the courts that made the wrongful verdict, then they will not be amenable to admitting their mistake. Consequently, appeals for wrongful conviction and compensation for such would seldom be entertained and if granted, would unfold as slowly as they do so now, leaving the innocent in jail for so many years. Additionally, procedures limiting the window of opportunity for new evidence should be abolished. Moreover, clauses on the existing Constitution which risk innocent convicts’ chances of an acquittal with receipt of damages and which the courts employ to block re-trials on wrongful convictions should be repealed. Conclusion From my experience at AIDWYC, I have come to realize that contrary to public opinion, just because a court convicted a person does not mean the individual actually did the crime. It has been further disappointing to discover that the number of wrong convictions would probably keep growing. Sadly, this shall be the fates for those innocents in jail s as long as the governments put more preference on maintaining their credibility than giving justice where justice is due. No one wants to admit a wrongdoing. A mistake is a blemish on an entity’s image. People in office were put there by a trusting public. When they make wrongful convictions, it’s a double injustice because not only does the innocent person go to jail, but the real perpetrator is out there to possibly commit more crimes and victimize more individuals. The inability to acknowledge wrongful convictions undermine the public trust as the government shows it is willing to sacrifice man’s life and liberty for the sake of its ego. If the government cannot own up to its mistakes, then it should allow for a solution to rectify wrongful convictions. This way innocent people can stop suffering from the government’s failure to perform its judicial duties satisfactorily. References: AIDWYC. (1999-2010). www.aidwyc.org. Bajer, R. and Trepanier, M. (2007). Wrongful Convictions in Canada. Retrieved on April 10, 2010 from http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf Campos, P. (2009). Scalia’s Death Row Lunacy. The Daily Beast. Retrieved on April 13, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/scalias-death-row-lunacy/ CBC News. (2009). Canada’s wrongful convictions: Cases where the courts got it wrong. Retrieved on April 10, 2010 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/06/f-wrongfully-convicted.html Christianson, S. (2004). Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases. New York: New York University Press Frank, R. (2005). The theory that self-interest is the Sole Motivator is Self-fulfilling. The New York Times. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from http://www.robert-h-frank.com/PDFs/ES.2.17.05.pdf Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Malandain, L. (2010). US top court halts Texas execution. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100324/ts_alt_afp/usfrancejusticeexecution Rosen, P. (1992). Wrongful Convictions in the Criminal Justice System. Government of Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp285-e.htm Seymour, A. (2010). No formal acquittal for Romeo Phillion’s old murder charge. The Gazette. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/formal+acquittal+Romeo+Phillion+murder+charge/2703122/story.html Seymour, A. (2010). Judge denies Phillion new trial: Upholds Crown’s right to withdraw murder charge in 1967 killing instead of granting man chance at ‘not guilty’ verdict. Retrieved on April 14, 2010 from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=2702146&sponsor= Tewfik, M. (2008). The Phenomenon of Wrongful Conviction. Retrieved on April 10, 2010 from http://www.innocenceproject.ca/WrongfulConviction.htm The Canadian Press. (2010). No compensation for wrongly accused mother. www.cbc.ca. Retrieved on April 14, 2010 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/01/waudby-compensation.html Udehn, L. (1996). The limits of public choice: a sociological critique of the economic theory of politics. London: Routledge. Read More