Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

 

Exoneration

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. Attempts to exonerate individuals are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place. The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.

The term "exoneration" also is used in criminal law to indicate a surety, i.e. bail bond has been satisfied, completed, and exonerated. The judge orders the bond exonerated; the clerk of court time stamps the original bail bond power and indicates exonerated as the judicial order.

Based on DNA evidence

DNA evidence is a relatively new instrument of exoneration. The first convicted defendant from a United States prison to be released on account of DNA testing was David Vasquez, who had been convicted of homicide, in 1989. Subsequently, DNA evidence was used to exonerate a number of persons either on death row or serving lengthy prison sentences. As of October 2003, the number of states authorizing individuals to request DNA testing on their behalf had increased from two to thirty. Access to DNA testing then and now can vary greatly by degree; post-conviction tests can be difficult to acquire. Organizations such as the Innocence Project and Centurion are particularly concerned with the exoneration of those who have been convicted based on weak or faulty evidence, regardless of DNA evidence. In October 2003, prosecutors of criminal cases must approve the defendant's request for DNA testing in certain cases.

Monday, April 23, 2007, Jerry Miller became the 200th person in the United States exonerated through the use of DNA evidence.[1] There is a national campaign in support of the formation of state Innocence Commissions, statewide entities that identify causes of wrongful convictions and develop state reforms that can improve the criminal justice system.

As of 2020, 375 people in the U.S. have[2] been exonerated based on DNA tests. In nearly half of these cases, faulty forensics contributed to the original conviction.[3]

Per February 4, 2014 NPR article, Laura Sullivan cited Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan law professor stating that exonerations were on the rise, and not just because of DNA evidence. Only one-fifth of the exonerations in 2013 relied on newly tested DNA, a little less than a third of exonerations occurred due to further investigating by law enforcement agencies.[4]

According to a 2020 study, DNA exonerations in rape cases "strongly suggest that the wrongful-conviction rate is significantly higher among black individuals than white individuals."[5]

Exonerees after exoneration

Wrongful conviction has many social, economic, and psychological consequences for people later exonerated, especially for death row exonerees.[6]

After exoneration, some exonerees publicly have joined or formed organizations like Witness to Innocence and the Innocence Project to tell their stories as a form of advocacy against the death penalty, prison conditions, or other criminal justice issues.[7]

See also

References

  1. ^ [1] The Innocence Project - Know the Cases: Browse Profiles:Jerry Miller Archived April 3, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ DNA exonerations in the United States (1989 – 2020). Innocence Project. (2023, June 22). https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/
  3. ^ Colloff, Pamela (20 December 2018). "Bloodstain Analysis Convinced a Jury She Stabbed Her 10-Year-Old Son. Now, Even Freedom Can't Give Her Back Her Life". propublica.org. ProPublica. Archived from the original on January 16, 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  4. ^ Sullivan, Laura (4 Feb 2014). "Exonerations On The Rise, And Not Just Because Of DNA". NPR. Retrieved 4 February 2014.
  5. ^ Bjerk, David; Helland, Eric (2020-05-01). "What Can DNA Exonerations Tell Us about Racial Differences in Wrongful-Conviction Rates?". The Journal of Law and Economics. 63 (2): 341–366. doi:10.1086/707080. hdl:10419/185297. ISSN 0022-2186. S2CID 51997973.
  6. ^ Grechenig, Nicklisch & Thoeni, Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt – A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions under Uncertainty, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) 2010, vol. 7 (4), p. 847-867.
  7. ^ Rajah, Valli (2021). "Enhancing the tellability of death-row exoneree narratives: Exploring the role of rhetoric". Punishment & Society: 1–19.
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya


Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve 
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9