The exoneration of the falsely convicted has always been an important implication in the court system, but it is exceedingly rare. DNA testing has helped to limit the amount of time and money needed to retry a case, but this type of testing is typically only useful in murder and rape cases where DNA evidence exists.
Still, over 1000 people have been individually exonerated since the benchmark year 1989 (when DNA exoneration began).
When they are pulling out forensic science to prove a defendant guilty on CSI, we all sit back and sigh in relief. Finally, as long as the evidence is gathered and disclosed in full accordance of the law, then the infallible crime lab evidence can put the true culprits behind bars, right?
There are many variables that need to be controlled in the court room, but even forensic science, the courtroom staple, is in ample need of reform. On July 10th it was announced that the Justice Department and the FBI, with the help of the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, will review cases reaching back to at least 1985. This investigation is focusing on cases that utilized hair and fiber follicle evidence. It is unclear as to what the determining factors for cases are in this joint review, but the occurrence of a review is a positive step. These steps however, must not stop here.
The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8 to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent. If this statement alone isn’t harrowing enough, consider this quick statistical delineation. As of January 1, 2010, there were 1,404,053 total inmates in American state prisons, according to Prison Count 2010. If the Bureau of Justice’s mean statistic of falsely imprisoned people is used (10%), then in 2010 there were approximately 140,405 falsely imprisoned people in our country.
Eyewitness testimony is an integral part of the judicial process, but often can be described as a chronic ailment of the American judicial system and one that contributes to wrongful convictions. The evidence is plain to see. Search any credible study or media source, and it will invariably display the same thing. Reliance on the memory of witnesses is, after all, not reliable.