Wrongful Convictions (Final)

Final Proposal Project:

Please find the rubric attached.
 

Each student will be required to complete the term project, which is a research proposal written in an APA Style. The project should have at least 8-10 pages of substance not counting the cover and reference page. Please include a Cover Page, an abstract and a list of references. The research proposal you write in this course will NOT be sent to the IRB for approval. This is because you will not be conducting actual research for the purpose of this class. You will, however, gain an insight as to how to write a research proposal.

Each student will be required to complete a research proposal, as the term project. The research proposal will include the following:

· Title page

· Abstract (100-120 words)

· Introduction

· Problem Statement

· Purpose Statement

· Hypothesis

· Literature Review and Definitions included in the research

· Research methods/design

· References

· Appendices – as needed (annotated bibliography, example consent form, example survey if used)

The research proposal (Term Project) must be in a Word Document ( ) uploaded to the student’s folder through the assignment section. Students will be required to use at least five scholarly references in their work.

Students are required to follow APA Style guidelines.
 

Please make sure that you are using the course-writing rubric to use as a checklist so that you write a solid paper.
 

Students must use a topic, which was approved by the instructor or their research proposal.

Do not include quotes in your work. The student needs to display good critical thinking skills and not a string of quotes written by published authors. Your proposal is what is needed for a successful research project to be conducted in the future.
 

Do not wait to the last minute to research, write, format, and edit. Proper time management is required to turn in a quality research proposal that highlights your understanding of how to conduct scholarly research.

Criminal Justice Formal Written Paper Rubric

Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper.

Quality of Response	No Response	Poor/Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory	Good	Excellent
Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points)		Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper.	20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking.	30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking.	40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete.	50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing.
Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points).	Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper.	5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper.	10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources.	15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources.	20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment.
Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points)	5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors	10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors	15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage.	20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free.
Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points)	Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper.	3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA requirements whatsoever.	5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of APA. The can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform with size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper	7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment.	10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 1

Wrongful Convictions

Damien J. Dickens

Research Design and Methods

SSGS 300

American Military University

Prof Anthony Galante

27 December 2020

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 2

Abstract

This research aims to identify the main causes of wrongful convictions in the US and

recommend strategies that can be implemented to reduce the rate of convictions. The research

is conducted through a meta-analysis of studies on the causes of wrongful convictions and

analysis of current intervention strategies. The study utilizes a qualitative approach since it is

descriptive. It is also a non-experimental study. The researcher selected articles and books

relevant to the research topic and identified causes of wrongful convictions, including false

convictions, perjury, witness misidentification, misinterpretation of forensic evidence, weak

defense, and police misconduct.

Introduction

Wrongful convictions refer to the conviction of a factually innocent person. The rate of

wrongful convictions in the US is alarming as the media continues to report such cases every

day. Many people are rotting in prison for crimes they never committed, yet criminals enjoy

freedom and opportunities to commit more crimes. The criminal justice system has

exonerated some prisoners through DNA tests, but others are still in prison awaiting the

lengthy legal procedures of exoneration. Reports indicate that between 2% to 10% of

prisoners are convicted wrongfully. Although the rate may sound low, the actual population

of victims is disturbing.

Before introducing the DNA test, most people had a lot of confidence in the criminal justice

system and rarely believed that some people were convicted wrongfully. After 1989, DNA

tests were introduced, and the number of people who were found innocent was shocking.

After DNA testing was introduced, a wrongful conviction was recognized as a national

agenda and attracted scholarly attention. Even after the introduction of DNA tests, many

Centered

Should be its own page

this is a proposal

Indent new paragraphs

good hook

1

2

3

4

5

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 3

innocent people serve imprisonment on death row. Existing efforts are seeking to address the

matter, which remains challenging to the nations.

Problem statement

It is ironic how a justice system is unjust itself. Where will people get justice if the system

promotes unfairness and ineffectiveness in society? While stakeholders make efforts to

reduce the crime rate, it is disheartening if the wrong people are sent to prison. Families

watch their loved ones suffer in despair, and innocent Americans develop health

complications as they serve short and long-term imprisonments.

Purpose statement

This research aims to identify the root causes of wrongful convictions, which will provide

insights on how the issue can be addressed.

Hypothesis

The research is based on the assumption that the criminal justice system is not effective, and

that is why the rate of wrongful convictions is still high. The system is entrusted with serving

the nation with justice. Taking innocent people into prison clearly shows that there are gaps

in the system. Another assumption that the research seeks to prove or disapprove is that

blacks are at higher risk of being wrongfully convicted in the USA than their white

counterparts. Lastly, the research is also based on the hypothesis that DNA tests are a tool of

hope for victims who have been wrongfully convicted for sexual assault and murder-related

crimes. Through a meta-analysis, the researcher seeks to prove or disapprove these

hypotheses.

Literature Review and terms used in the research

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 4

Existing literature identifies the causes of wrongful convictions and recommends

interventions that can help address the issue. Many researchers identify similar causes of

wrongful convictions. Several studies identify eyewitness misidentification as a leading

factor of wrongful convictions. The innocence project reports that eyewitness identifications

account for at least three-quarters of wrongful convictions in the USA. Faulty eyewitness

evidence has many potential attributes. Circumstances that may lead to faulty eyewitness

evidence include memory loss, blindness, and suggestive procedures. For example, the longer

the period taken to acquire, retain, and retrieve evidence, the more difficult it is for a witness

to identify the correct person.

Causes of wrongful convictions

Police misconduct is another factor that contributes to wrongful convictions. Police officers

are expected to be professional and objective throughout the case. They are supposed to make

the right decisions during the investigation and promote justice for the citizens. When officers

engage in suggestive practices, they are likely to cause wrongful convictions. Sometimes,

enforcement officers are so convinced of a conclusion that they fail to consider alternative

scenarios. The use of evidence to support their conclusions is an aspect of confirmation bias

that leads to wrongful convictions. The bias becomes reinforced when an officer acts in ways

that lead to fulfilling his expectations, for example, by asking leading questions.

Studies also reveal that false confessions lead to wrongful convictions. Researchers reveal

that a good number of prisoners either fully or partially confess falsely. One of the causes of

false confessions may be due to the suspect’s poor mental state (Leach, 2019). Suspects with

mental disorders may confess falsely because they do not really understand what they are

getting themselves into. Additionally, people confess falsely due to abusive and intensive

police interrogations. When police use abusive interrogation processes, suspects confess

Where is the peer reviewed research required for this section ?

6

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 5

falsely for two reasons: the suspect is persuaded to admit they did what they did not or

choose to comply to escape the abusive interrogation process.

The introduction of forensic evidence has been significant in the judicial system, but faulty

evidence also leads to wrongful convictions. The first challenge of forensic evidence is it has

a probability of inaccuracy and may identify a wrong person to be a criminal. There are also

concerns that forensic laboratories are engaging in malpractices that yield inaccurate forensic

testimonies (Grose, 2017). The country’s forensic system is fragmented and poses a threat to

the quality and credibility of forensic evidence and its role in the criminal justice system.

Studies also reveal that much of this evidence is fabricated in police stations and crime labs to

obtain convictions.

Some cases prove ineffective of the counsel supposed to protect the defendant who ends up

being wrongfully convicted. Researchers have found out that ineffective defense lawyering

has caused the highest number of death sentences and wrongful convictions in the past thirty

years. Some of the circumstances that lead to wrongful convictions include filing improper

motions, inability to challenge forensic evidence, inadequate investigations, unwarranted

concessions, and failure to adequately challenge witnesses. Under the law, there is a

difference between poor representation and inadequate representation. In many cases of

exoneration, there are arguments for poor lawyering due to overwhelming evidence. It is also

notable that the standards for adequate representation are low. The law should enhance

standards for adequate representation.

Racial disparity is a common cause of wrongful convictions, as depicted by many

researchers. Much of the existing literature indicates that the criminal justice system

disparately impacts the minorities in the USA. Minorities suffer prejudiced effects on

identifying, prosecuting, and sentencing criminals. Minorities are not only likely to be

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 6

stopped by police, but they are also likely to be victims of wrongful convictions. While

blacks constitute 13 % of the American population, 43 to 60% of wrongfully convicted

prisoners are blacks. The racial disparity occurs within eyewitness identification errors and

prejudice of the jury. In rape cases, a white victim may unintentionally identify a wrong black

or Hispanic man as the perpetrator (Olarere, 2019). In such a case, white juries will use such

questionable evidence to prosecute the suspect. The presence of racial disparity throughout

the criminal justice system combines and has a more detrimental effect, such as wrongful

conviction.

The gaps that exist in the system have become a significant source of wrongful convictions.

For quite some time, the criminal justice system has had many issues, including increased

caseloads and lack of funds. These problems have led to an increase in the use of plea

bargains. This results in a negative impact on the defendants and undermines a police

investigation’s role in the system. Police become sloppy when they realize their evidence is

less used in court. They use poor interrogation techniques that lead to false confessions, and

eventually, innocent people are convicted. Plea bargaining has also increased the cases that

can be prosecuted. Prosecutors may impose harsh charges on defendants who are not willing

to accept plea bargains. These issues contribute to a vicious cycle of system problems making

it difficult to address wrongful convictions.

How to prevent wrongful convictions

Researchers have suggested various forms of addressing wrongful convictions in the USA

based on the causes. To avoid false eye witness identification, the system should involve

experts before, during, and after eye witness identification. There should also be an

improvement in collecting evidence from eyewitnesses and ensuring that all participants are

trained on eyewitness identification and its consequences. Researchers also advise that

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 7

defense attorneys should be present during interrogations to inform the court of any

improprieties that may have occurred. Experts also emphasize that eye witness errors can be

reduced by limiting the willingness to convict suspects based on eye witness evidence.

Scientists play a significant role in minimizing forensic errors. They should ensure all

statements are supported by accurately collected and analyzed data. They should also clarify

forensic evidence’s probative value to minimize conclusions based on the likelihood of the

defendant’s involvement (Garrett, 2020). The system becomes more just if it relies not only

on forensic evidence but also on other forms. Since machines can be faulty, the criminal

justice system should ensure they avail proper machines in forensic laboratories and enhance

scientists’ training to boost the effectiveness of forensic science.

Other researchers have recommended the structuring of costs to enhance the accuracy of

verdicts. Recent studies assert that the crime lab’s better funding will reduce wrongful

convictions by serving as a defense counsel that will be more effective than normal

lawyering. The system should also focus on expanding mandatory disclosure practices of

evidence, access to evidence files and judicial depositions, and expanding evidence discovery

to reduce the errors associated with inadequate or poor lawyering.

Research on government conduct is limited, but few studies have identified government

misconduct, such as coaching witnesses, failing to disclose critical evidence, and offering

incendiaries. Researchers have suggested implementing policies that prevent government

misconduct, such as enforcing the electronic recording of evidence and interrogations and the

use of double-blind eyewitness identification procedures. The innocence project recommends

using experts at every stage of the investigation process to avoid government and police

misconduct. Awareness of the role of government in wrongful convictions will boost the

equity of the overall justice system.

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 8

Definition of terms

Incendiary-refers to willfully and maliciously setting another person to commit a crime to be

convicted.

Wrongful conviction-The conviction of a factually innocent suspect.

Perjury-misinterpreting or telling lies wilfully when taking an oath.

Exonerations-The legal release of a prisoner after investigations prove that one is innocent.

Forensic evidence-evidence is obtained scientifically, including DNA tests, fingerprints,

ballistic reports, and trace evidence that prove a suspect’s guilt/innocence.

Official misconduct-Inappropriate police behavior.

Research methodology/Design

The research will focus on a qualitative study to answer the research question and probably

address wrongful convictions. An analysis of all the secondary sources in a descriptive

manner seeks to identify and discuss all the possible causes of wrongful convictions in the

USA and identify solutions that can help address the problem. This will be done by assessing

existing interventions’ effectiveness to identify gaps and articulate ways of fixing those gaps.

Most of the sources used are based on primary research, which makes the process credible. It

is a more flexible approach that is less bound by quantitative research limitations.

A deep analysis of the secondary data is deployed to ensure the validity and reliability of the

research. A random purposive sampling approach was used to collect sources that relate

directly to the research topic and can be applicable in addressing the research problem. The

articles must also be current to avoid stale information that may not be used to address

current problems. All the sources that meet this criterion will then be analyzed, and

Indent all new paragraphs

give an example

what sources? from where ?how is it vetted ?

7

9

10

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 9

information used to establish a causal relationship between the dependent and independent

variables. The research is non-experimental, and no statistical tests will be conducted.

Qualitative research is preferred in this case because the research topic is exploratory and

seeks to address a problem in soft science (Hesse et al., 2019). The approach is also

appropriate because the researcher seeks to go deeper into the issue of interest and explore

underlying issues relevant to addressing the problem. It is less time-consuming and,

therefore, appropriate to fit in the researcher’s tight schedule. It is also easy because it

requires fewer resources. When there is a pandemic, primary research may not be ideal

because there is a movement restriction. Using secondary data allows the researcher to

analyze without interacting with people.

Conclusion

Research on wrongful convictions is significant because it enhances the equity and

effectiveness of the judicial system. Victims of wrongful convictions are failed by the system

and forced to bear the undue burden of proving their innocence, a time-consuming and costly

process (Asplen, 2019). A system that acts retroactively may not be active in promoting

justice in society. Although the public systems always have issues, there are ways of

gradually improving these systems, and quality research will inform most of the solutions.

The government should also fund research to motivate researchers to dig deeper into

underlying issues that cause public systems problems.

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS 10

References

Asplen, C., Forensic Technology Center of Excellence (FCoE), & United States of America.

(, 2019). Just Science: DNA: Just DNA and the Post-Conviction Dynamic.

Garrett, B. L. (2020). Wrongful Convictions. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 245-259.

Grose, I. C. (2017). Fingerprint Identification: Potential Sources of Error and the Cause of

Wrongful Convictions. Journal of Student Science and Technology, 10(1).

Hesse, A., Glenna, L., Hinrichs, C., Chiles, R., & Sachs, C. (2019). Qualitative research

ethics in the big data era. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), 560-583.

Leach, T. (2019). False confessions: Causes and recommendations for prevention.

Olalere, F. A. (2020). Case study account of causes and legal implication of wrongful

conviction. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and

Jurisprudence, 11(2), 122-134.

Use proper APA format as shown in the provided sample.

8