TY - JOUR
T1 - Innocence commissions
T2 - Due process remedies and protection for the innocent
AU - Schehr, Robert Carl
AU - Sears, Jamie
N1 - Funding Information:
Recognition of the need for innocence commissions to proliferate across the United States led Larry Hammond and John Stookey, each of the Osborn Maledon law firm in Phoenix, Arizona, to propose a national gathering on the topic. With the financial support of the Sorros Foundation, a unique conference was held in January of 2003 in Washington, D.C. Teams participated from each state and were represented by prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement personnel, and academics. These teams were treated to a presentation by Hammond and Stookey on the topic of what innocence projects might look like. Substantive case materials relating to the Larry Youngblood and Ray Krone exonerations (each from Arizona) were deconstructed as a way to signify precisely how an innocence project might proceed with case review.
PY - 2005/1
Y1 - 2005/1
N2 - Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.
AB - Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944461012&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944461012&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10612-005-4798-x
DO - 10.1007/s10612-005-4798-x
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:24944461012
SN - 1205-8629
VL - 13
SP - 181
EP - 209
JO - Critical Criminology
JF - Critical Criminology
IS - 2
ER -