Innocence Project - Government Misconduct Stats

Government Misconduct

Reference: http://www.innocenceproject.org
Some wrongful convictions are caused by honest mistakes. In some cases, however, officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence.

The cases of wrongful convictions uncovered by DNA testing are replete with evidence of fraud or misconduct by prosecutors or police departments.
A few bad apples
Most law enforcement officers and prosecutors are honest and trustworthy. But criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for corruption exists. Even if one officer of every thousand is dishonest, wrongful convictions will continue to occur.
DNA exonerations have exposed official misconduct at every level and stage of a criminal investigation. This misconduct has included:
  • deliberate suggestiveness in identification procedures
  • the withholding of evidence from defense
  • the deliberate mishandling, mistreatment or destruction of evidence
  • the coercion of false confessions
  • the use of unreliable government informants or snitches

Necessary Oversight
Safeguards can be enacted to prevent official misconduct from causing wrongful convictions. See our Fix The System section for ways to address these problems, including our recommendations for establishing criminal justice reform commissions.


What happens in cases that there is no DNA evidence? How many cases involve very little or no physical evidence? If misconduct exists, and it does, what measures can be taken to protect innocent victims from misconduct? Thoughts or Comments?

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM

    Many law enforcement agencies are opting to record with both audio and video all interviews or interrogations of especially felony cases to ensure the integrity of testimonial evidence as they would actual physical evidence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Politically Above the Law

America is doomed if you accept this conclusion from the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. What you should accept is the evidentiary findings from this investigation, because the evidence that was found and presented does not support the conclusion. The FBI’s notion of “intent” and the actions of a “reasonable person” in her position are clearly supported by the evidence found. In other words, why would anyone in a governmental position such as Secretary of State, ever use any form of unsecured communication regarding ANY sensitive information regardless of its classification? The fact is she used not just one, but several personal servers to communicate and store any governmental information, when policy and security prohibits such communications. The willful act to ignore these policies only raises question of the underlying intent of doing so. Such actions are “grossly negligent” because the risk of harm, intrusion and security is extensive op...
Read more

The Fruit Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree...Or Does It?

Do you ever wonder what makes our views so different from others around us? I mean we seem to hold the same principles and core beliefs, but yet we differ in so many other ways. Is it the way we grew up or was it the environment we found ourselves surrounded by? There must be something that makes us take such polar opposite views on many things and yet unites us on others. Lets just take a moment and reflect upon our upbringing. Did the parenting skills and practices our parents had with us and how it molds our future? I don't think that one is more right than the other and most certainly, the environment we were raised in doesn't necessarily shape our future, I suppose, unless you let it. Let's examine this a little further... Parent A: Good hard working people with good moral beliefs. They have a love and respect for family and friends and teaches their children to have the same. They provide all the necessary tools for education and responsibility. They want nothing ...
Read more