gregh  2007-07-24 04:00  criminaljustice  evidence  Law   

Study of Wrongful Convictions Raises Questions Beyond DNA - New York Times:

When an airplane crashes, investigators pore over the wreckage to discover what went wrong and to learn from the experience. The justice system has not done anything similar.

But a new study does. Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has, for the first time, systematically examined the 200 cases, in which innocent people served an average of 12 years in prison. In each case, of course, the evidence used to convict them was at least flawed and often false -- yet juries, trial judges and appellate courts failed to notice.

It's not clear to me who "the justice system" that is not poring over the cases of exonerated prisoners is. Exonerated prisoners are from multiple states, are released for different reasons at different times, and they've been convicted and freed under disparate laws.

Has this mythical "justice system" truly turned a blind eye to its failures? The article puts forth some points that refute that:

There were false confessions in 16 percent of the cases, with two-thirds of those involving defendants who were juveniles, mentally retarded or both.

Certainly many participants in the justice system have acted on these issues. Evidentiary rules often allow greater flexibility for juveniles and the mentally retarded to tell their stories in court. Miranda must not only be heard but understood to be waived.

Is it surprising that many in this group still slip between the cracks? Unfortunately, no. Our system strives for fairness and process, but not perfection, whether in fairness, process, or results.

And while the article points out that many crimes don't lend themselves to exoneration by DNA, it says a little more:

Perhaps the most troubling finding in Professor Garrett’s study was how reluctant the criminal justice system was to allow DNA testing in the first place. Prosecutors often opposed it, and 16 courts initially denied requests for testing.

. . .

The era of DNA exonerations should be a finite one. These days, DNA testing is common on the front end of prosecutions, meaning that in a few years, the window that the 200 exonerations has opened on the justice system will close. We should look carefully through that window while we can.

This suggests that the "justice system" does, in fact, assess its errors and weakness. The system, through judicial, legislative, or other rulemaking action makes corrections based on new information from past failures and successes.

It's not a perfect system. We should examine the flaws where we find them. But we also must realize that perfection is unobtainable. We will always convict the innocent, and we will often exonerate the guilty. We should strive for zero in each of those categories but recognize that that is a goal we cannot reach.