Wrongful Conviction - A Miscarriage In The Canadian Justice System

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

“It is difficult to prove a causal relationship between permissible investigative and interrogatory deception and testimonial deception.  Police freely admit to deceiving suspects and defendants.  They do not admit to perjury, much less to the rationalization of perjury.  There is evidence, however of the acceptability of perjury as a means to the end of conviction.  The evidence is limited and fragmentary and is certainly not dispositive” (Skolnick, 1982).

Within police reports, witnesses often provide conflicting observations of the same crime. One witness may have seen a tall, stalky, Caucasian male, who stole a navy-blue car. However, another witness may have observed that the perpetrator was an average sized, Latino male, who stole a black car. Normally, these discrepancies between police reports are not intentional and are the product of different interpretations of the perception of the criminal act. It is evident that the Canadian legal system recognizes the imperfections of perception due to the fact that this regular occurrence is not prosecuted or penalized. The flaws of perception become further evident when examining that the Canadian legal system acknowledges differences in perception between

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

The aspect of the Canadian justice system that this article relates to is obviously policing/ law enforcement. Specifically this article goes into the regulations of policing as Ontario police officers now have to follow stricter regulations when stopping any member of the public. This is important in relation to the Canadian justice system as police officers stopping citizens is considered a controversial issue as people feel random stops or carding are considered arbitrary, and unnecessary, and this violates section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms which states that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and Carding is “A practice by which officers stop, question,

When looking back at ancient systems, I see opportunities for change within our current Canadian criminal justice system. Today, Justice is coherently linked with punishment because we use a “Tough on Crime Approach” (Zinger,2016). Criminal justice focuses on locking up convicted offenders, to eliminate them from society and deter them from reoffending (Wacks, 2015). Natalie DeFreitas states that this is not an effective system because 70% of people incarcerated reoffend after one year of being released from prison (DeFreitas, 2012). In order to reduce recidivism Canada must focus on repairing the harm created between the victims and the offender, just like in ancient times. The state should not be considered the victim of an offence, instead

Canada criminal responsibility a person that is arrested has the right to an attorney and the reason for the arrest must be given in detail. Once under arrest the person has the right to remain silent, if not anything they say would be used as evidence against them. Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. “All offences in Canada may be classified as indictable (the more serious) or summary conviction (the less serious)” (Criminal Procedure, n.d.). Any person that is convicted of has the right to a second tribunal.

False memory can be defined as a person believing they remember something that did not actually happen (Loftus, 1997). It is a common misconception that human memories are accurate and reliable (Poston, 2014), though many studies have revealed the reconstructive nature of memory and its vulnerability to distortion (e.g., Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Nash & Wade, 2008). This misconception forms an integral part of the modern justice system. Judges, attournies and juries are all prone to believe testimony from a confident eyewitness (Van Wallendael et al., 2007) and legal confessions are considered among the most compelling forms of evidence (e.g., Cutler, 2012; Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). But what happens when these legal statements are based on false memories?

In sum, we can conclude that eyewitness memory still hold important place in investigation and prosecution process yet it is flawed. Based on research that I reviewed in this paper, there are several aspects that important to enhance eyewitness memory such as the repetition and precision-accuracy trade off. In contrast there are some factors that can threatens quality of memory such as such as avoiding co-witness situation, less focus on the confidence level to measure accuracy and delayed effect. These factors need to be prioritize to create a better environment to recall accurate information.

Quick! Look over there something suspicious is happening! Just a little later, you’re being called into court to testify on the event. But, what can you remember and what is your mind playing tricks? Based on the facts below, one can come to the conclusion that, eyewitnesses should not be allowed to testify in court because witness often can’t correctly remember the event and, there is no way to test the validity of statements. This can throw off the whole trial. One can come to this conclusion because; witnesses can’t remember, there is no way to test validity, the human brain shifts things around, witnesses often put personal input, witnesses statements have a lot of weight, outside influences affect testimonies, and innocent people are often

This semester I have become increasingly addicted to Law & Order: SVU, with my most recent binge lasting longer than I'd like to admit. Despite the "the following stories are fictional" titular phrase shown at the beginning of each episode, the show often uses real events (romanticizing and glamorizing them, of course) as inspiration for storylines. After reading "Under Suspicion," I was reminded of a specific episode of SVU that related strongly to the ideas presented in the article as well as the textbook. While the readings discuss more about the methods (and subsequent errors) of eyewitness testimonies, I would like to continue this discussion by looking at the detrimental effects that wrongful conviction can have on people. In the aforementioned

Word count: 807 Eyewitness testimony is an account given by a person who was present at an event for example a robbery and they give a recollection of the event in front of the court of law. The testimony can include a description of the perpetrators, details of the crime scene and other factors which could help determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. An eyewitness testimony is relevant in the criminal justice system because it’s one of the main forms of evidence used in court. Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable; an example of this could be discussion by witnesses which will be discussed later on the essay. There are measures that the Criminal Justice system (CJS) can put in place to increase the reliability of the testimony in turn

It is clear that in order to bolster the credibility of eyewitness identification, reforms are essential in order to preserve the accuracy of these witness’ memories. Some reforms have already been proposed like the cognitive interview (CI) (Frenda et al., 2011). However, as Clark (2012) asserts, suggesting reforms to the eyewitness institution in the court of law requires solid evidence in order to scientifically support provide these recommendations. Our search to find eradication for false memories may never

In an imaginary world the law would always give the correct results but in a real world it’s the other way. When they don’t which way do they tend to err? Which way do we want to err? We want the law to err on the side of acquitting guilty people rather than convicting ones. It is generally accepted that the price of a fair Criminal Justice System will be acquittal on a technicality of those who have committed criminal offences or because of a failure of evidence, where as conviction of the innocent is