How to Mitigate the Risk of Wrongful Convictions

Introduction 

The debate about wrongful convictions has been going in many countries, including the US for almost two decades. However, the debate was enhanced in the early 2000s when scholars started to explore the topic revolving around miscarriage of justice, particularly in the USA. Studies on the miscarriage of justice mainly focus on the causes and consequences of wrongful convictions. Based on the findings of the studies and reports by various government agencies and private entities, cases of wrongful convictions are rapidly increasing, and it has reached an alarming state. Even though many factors cause the wrongful conviction, findings of various studies and survey reveal that eyewitness identification is the major cause of the problem. Thus, criminologists and players in the criminal justice system mainly associate wrongful convictions with eyewitness misidentification. Nonetheless, the increasing rate of wrongful convictions is also linked to issues like ineffective interrogation procedures, poor storage, and preservation of evidence, and inaccurate information from police informants. To reduce cases of wrongful convictions, it is important to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification while addressing other factors that are associated with the problem. 

Measures to Mitigate Wrongful Convictions 

Eliminating Eyewitness Misidentification 

Eye witness remains to be one of the most reliable evidence that the jury or judges depend on to make a conviction. As a result, it is no surprise that a study revealed that 74% of all convictions are based on eye witness testimonies. It is rare for the judge to dispute a testimony or information that is provided by eyewitnesses in court. However, it is increasingly becoming apparent that overreliance on eyewitness testimonies can result in injustice, especially in the case of eyewitness misidentification (Leo, 2016). Available evidence has shown that that the USA is experiencing a high rate of exoneration due to eyewitness misidentification. For instance, according to the findings of a study that was done by Norris et al. (2019), eyewitness misidentification accounts for about 74% of total exonerations in the country. At the same time, based on the survey that was conducted by the National Registry of Exoneration, eyewitness misidentification is associated with nearly 69% exoneration of cases that are related to sexual assault ( Norris et al., 2019) . Hence, based on the statistics and research findings, eyewitness misidentification is a major factor contributing to the increasing rate of wrongful convictions. 

Many factors are associated with a significant percentage of the possibility of the fallibility of eye witness identification. Eyewitnesses largely depend on their memory to accurately identify suspects who are involved in various crimes (Zalman, 2017). Besides, the human memory is a complex process, which may end up affecting the accuracy of the information that is given by a witness. At the same time, the ability of eyewitnesses to identify suspects is influenced by external factors like the perceived threat posed by the suspects, as well as cross-rate-effects ( Albright, 2017) . As a result, the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has been questioned, and it forms a significant part of the discussion on wrongful convictions ( Gould & Leo, 2010) . Therefore, based on the available evidence, many criminologists and people who responsible for justice have recommended several measures that can be used to reduce or eliminate eyewitness misidentification. 

The first important measure to address eyewitness identification is to redesign witness instructions that are given to eyewitness before the suspect identification process. A significant number of eyewitnesses always assume that the suspect or perpetrator is present in the identification line up or array of photos or images presented before them ( Dioso-Villa et al., 2016) . Consequently, eyewitnesses feel that they are under obligation to identify a suspect in the identification process, which may lead to misidentification of the perpetrator. Therefore, to reduce misidentification, criminologists and other scholars argue that eyewitnesses should be provided with a given witness instruction that informs him or her that the suspect may not be in the lineup or array of photos presented in the identification process. At the same time, eyewitnesses should be informed that they should not feel obliged to identify the suspect or perpetrator. According to Norris et al. (2019), eyewitnesses are not likely to make wrong identification when they are presented with such witness instructions. The instruction should not only be given to eyewitnesses but also law enforcement officers who are involved in the process (Free & Ruesink, 2012). As a result, eyewitnesses should be informed that law enforcement officers are not aware of the perpetrator. Hence, redesigning witness instruction can help in reducing eyewitness misidentification significantly. 

The second measure is the implementation of blind procedures during the identification. The measure is based on the notion that law enforcement officers who are involved in the identification process can influence the decisions that are made by eyewitnesses. In a number of cases, officers who are involved in the perpetrator identification procedures are part of the investigation, and they may be aware of the suspects. As a result, such officers can consciously or unconsciously give a clue, which determines how eyewitnesses approach the identification lineup or photos presented before them (Huff & Killias, 2010). To reduce the risk of misidentification, law enforcement officers or agencies should use blind procedures. Specifically, the police who are administering the procedure should not be aware of the suspect. Also, the officer who may be aware of the perpetrator should not provide feedback that is either confirming or disputing eyewitness testimony. A study that was done by Steblay, Dysart, and Wells in 2011 revealed that both verbal and non-verbal cues influence the action and behaviors of eyewitnesses substantially. Blind procedures, therefore, can be used to reduce eyewitness misidentification, which is one of the major causes of eyewitness misidentification. 

Also, redesigning of lineup and array of photos that are used in the identification process can help in reducing eyewitness misidentification. Norris et al. (2019) argue that the lineup of photo array affects the results of eyewitness identification procedure or process. Hence, according to criminologists, the lineup or photo array should not expose or make a suspect stand out among other people. Making a suspect stand out during the identification process can result in eyewitness misidentification (Mu, Chung & Reed, 2017). At the same time, in a case that is involving many eyewitnesses, law enforcement officers who are involved in the process should use different identification procedures, as this can assist in reducing potential biases (van der Walt, 2016). Also, according to the recommendations of the Government Institute of Justice (NIJ), the lineup should comprise of at least four fillers to increase the probability of eyewitness accuracy. Specifically, NIJ recommends live multiparty lineups, which is more effective and accurate than show-ups. Based on the analysis of NIJ, show-ups often result in eyewitness misidentification. The composition of fillers in the lineup or photo array is critical to the eyewitness identification process. 

According to Norris et al. (2019), video recording of identification can also assist in reducing eyewitness misidentification substantially. Besides, the use of video recording has been recommended by several government agencies and organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA). The National Research Council recommended the use of video recording in the identification process in 2014. NIJ, on the other hand, argued that the documentation of the identification process could reduce the chances of eyewitness misidentification, resulting in a significant reduction of wrongful convictions. Moreover, the use of sequential presentation can reduce misidentification. Studied have revealed that the use of simultaneous lineup increases the risk of wrong identification due to eyewitness’ relative judgment (Loftus, 2018). To enhance absolute judgment that increases the accuracy of identification, many criminologists have recommended sequential presentation. Sequential presentation makes eyewitness depend on absolute judgment instead of relative judgment. 

Currently, scholars, criminologists, and players in the justice system have recommended several measures that can be used to reduce eyewitness misidentification with the primary objective of address the surging rate of wrongful convictions. It is clear from the scholarly studies and evidence that law enforcement officers play a significant role in the identification process. As a result, police officers should ensure that the eyewitness procedure should be conducted in a way that it enhances the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies. Maintaining a high level of objectivity while reducing biases can help in reducing wrongful convictions significantly (Loftus, 2018). Even though eyewitness misidentification is one of the major factors that are contributing to wrongful conviction, currently, many measures can be implemented to address the problem. 

Law Enforcement Measures 

Law enforcement officers play a critical role in the criminal justice system across the globe. Thus, according to Batts et al. (2014), the police should actively be involved to reduce the increasing rate of wrongful conviction. Batts et al. (2014) argue that, in order to address the problem of wrongful convictions, law enforcement agencies should embrace best practices that lead to justice while at the same time they should learn from the past mistakes or errors to improve the effectiveness of their operations or activities. Besides, the police should use effective investigative strategies that reduce the chances of wrongful convictions. Therefore, generally, Batts et al. (2014) opine that the increasing cases of wrongful convictions can be reduced when the police use effective strategies while adopting the best practices. 

Firsts, based on the analysis that was done by Batts et al. (2014), the police should change or redesign their informant practices to reduce wrongful convictions. Informants refer to people who provide critical information or evidence to the law enforcement officers with the primary intention of getting some benefits such as financial rewards or leniency ( Leo, 2017) . Police investigation largely relies on informants who provide useful information that can be used to try and convict a suspect in the criminal justice system. The use of informants is more prevalent in drug-related cases than any other offense. For instance, based on the statistics that was recently published by the US government, about 60% of drug defendants closely work and collaborate with prosecutors and the police to receive some leniency (Batts et al., 2014). However, although informants are essential during the police investigation, studies have shown that they can cause wrongful convictions. For example, according to the findings of a survey that was conducted by the Center on Wrongful Convictions in 2004, informants have contributed to about 45.9% of wrongful convictions (Batts et al., 2014). Unfortunately, sometimes, criminal investigators only rely on evidence that is provided by informants. 

Therefore, criminologists and key players in the criminal justice system have recommended many interventions that will ensure that informants provide accurate information or evidence to the police. Specifically, according to the International Association of Chief Police (IACP), law enforcement officers should use the Initial Suitability Report (ISR) when they are dealing with informants (Batts et al., 2014). The report should clearly spell out the relationship between the informant and suspect and the ability of the former to get and provide useful investigation. Also, the report should provide the main factors that motivate the informants to provide critical information to the police, as well as his or her criminal history. IACP argues that monitoring and understanding the key factors that motivate informants can assist in reducing wrongful convictions substantially. 

At the same time, to increase the accuracy of the information and evidenced that are provided by informants, the Center on Wrongful Conviction recommended the electrical recording of any material or information that comes from informants. A lot of conversation and discussion between the police and informants take place in a custodial setting, which is inaccessible to many people. To enhance justice, electrical records about the evidence from informants should be availed to the defense lawyer or attorney (Jones, 2012) . Also, the Center on Wrongful Conviction maintains that information and evidence should be stored in centralized informant files or information system for future references. Effective storage of informant information does not only reduce wrongful convictions, but it also allows the police to access in-depth data and information that can be useful to the police and other investigative agencies. 

Therefore, some agencies and criminologists have recommended effective evidence storage and preservation as one of the measures to reduce wrongful convictions. The way the police handle evidence plays an essential role in the criminal justice system. The survey that was conducted by the Innocence Project in 2013 revealed that about 32% of cases are closed or terminated because of the loss of evidence (Batts et al., 2014). Evidence storage and handling are not only important in establishing a suspect’s innocence before conviction but also after they have been convicted. As a result, to reduce wrongful convictions, law enforcement agencies should create and implement standardized evidence storage. With increased technologies, Batts et al. (2014) argue that the police should use digital photos, as well as narrative descriptions to enhance the storage of evidence. Also, to ensure that evidence is not tampered with, law enforcement agencies should develop a framework that acts as a guideline for chain-of-custody documentation. The frameworks should help in identifying any person who has accessed the evidence, especially in the past. Effective evidence storage and perseveration is another important measure that can be used to reduce wrongful convictions. 

According to the report that was released by the National Registry of Exonerations in 2014, police cooperation is important in reducing wrongful convictions because it enhances exoneration. Previously, the police or prosecutors were hesitant to cooperate in the exoneration process. However, based on the survey by the National Registry of Exonerations, the police cooperated in about 54% of exoneration that occurred in 2012 (Batts et al., 2014). Transparency or openness in the criminal justice system can reduce wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions can only be reduced when the police and prosecutors are willing and ready to cooperate with other organization and agencies that play a role in the criminal justice system. Hence, police strategies and practices should be geared towards achieving justice for both victims and suspects to reduce the surging rate of wrongful convictions that are becoming rampant in both developed and developing countries. 

Christian Worldview of Wrongful Convictions 

Wrongful accusations are not only based on secular perspective but also Christian worldview. There are many instances of examples in the Bible, where people were falsely accused or convicted without violating any law or engaging in criminal activities. For instance, Jeremiah was falsely accused and imprisoned, even though he did not do any wrong. Like many people who have been wrongly convicted, Jeremiah was exonerated by King Zedekiah, who later believed that he was telling the truth. Wrongful conviction is condemned in many verses in the Bible. For instance, Proverb 3:30 makes it clear that people should not be convicted if they have not done any wrong. According to the biblical perspective on wrongful conviction, false accusation is wrong, and people who give wrong information against others should receive severe punishment. The Book of Proverb 19:9 clearly states that no false witness should go unpunished and people who propagate lies should perish. 

At the same time, the Bible gives some reasons why people engage in false accusations. According to Psalms 35:20, people wrongfully accuse others with the primary intention of causing troubles. Besides, based on the biblical perspective, individuals falsely accuse others due to revenge or as a result of power plays. Based on this perspective, the police should be aware of the motives that make informants to give evidence against suspects. It is true as contained in the Bible that informants may be motivated by revenge, making them give false information against others. Also, the police should be sensitive to power play when they are dealing with informants. A lot of drug-related activities involve power play, as it incorporates many cartels and networks. Thus, to reduce wrongful convictions in drug-related cases, the police or investigators should have a clear understanding. Apart from scholarly articles and studies, the police should sometimes use the Bible as a reference when they are conducting investigations. 

Conclusion 

Wrongful conviction is increasingly becoming one of the major concerns in the criminal justice system. The fact that a significant number of people are now being exonerated due to the false accusation is a clear indication that wrongful convictions are becoming rampant. Wrongful misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, especially based on the available evidence. Nonetheless, some police practices and strategies enhance wrongful convictions. Fortunately, currently, criminologists and various parties to the criminal justice system have identified specific measures that can assist in reducing wrongful convictions. A proper eyewitness identification procedure or process should be used to lower cases of wrongful misidentification. Law enforcement agencies and officers should be trained in ways to reduce eyewitness misidentification, which is causing false accusations. Besides, other players in the criminal justice system like prosecutors and attorneys should play a role in addressing wrongful convictions that are becoming common and is affecting thousands of people. 

References 

Albright, T. D. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114 (30), 7758-7764. 

Batts, A. W., DeLone, M., Stephens, D. W., John F Kennedy School of Government, & Program in Criminal Justice Policy Management. (2014). Policing and Wrongful Convictions . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Dioso-Villa, R., Julian, R., Kebbell, M., Weathered, L., & Westera, N. (2016). Investigation to exoneration: A systemic review of wrongful conviction in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice , 28 (2), 157-172. 

Free, M. D., & Ruesink, M. (2012). Race and justice: Wrongful convictions of African American men . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 

Gould, J. B., & Leo, R. A. (2010). One hundred years later: wrongful convictions after a century of research. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 825-868. 

Huff, C. R., & Killias, M. (Eds.). (2010). Wrongful conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of justice . Temple University Press. 

Jones, J. A. (2012). Wrongful conviction in the American judicial process: History, scope, and analysis. Inquiries Journal , 4 (08). 

Leo, R. A. (2016). The criminology of wrongful conviction . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(1), 82–106. 

Leo, R. A. (2017). The criminology of wrongful conviction: A decade later. Journal of contemporary criminal justice , 33 (1), 82-106. 

Loftus, E. F. (2018). Eyewitness Science and the Legal System. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 14 , 1-10. 

Mu, E., Chung, T. R., & Reed, L. I. (2017). A paradigm shift in criminal police lineups: Eyewitness identification as multicriteria decision making. International Journal of Production Economics , 184 , 95-106. 

Norris, R. J., Bonventre, C. L., Redlich, A. D., Acker, J. R., & Lowe, C. (2019). Preventing wrongful convictions: an analysis of state investigation reforms. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 30 (4), 597-626. 

Van der Walt, L. M. (2016). Judicial understanding of the reliability of eyewitness evidence: A tale of two cases. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 19 (1). 

Zalman, M. (2017). Wrongful convictions and the innocence movement . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(1), 4–7.