The Repercussions of Miscarriages of Justice

The Repercussions of Miscarriages of Justice-

(one of my approved U of M criminology pieces)

 ​ Wrongful convictions have permanently altered many lives and systems in significant ways throughout history. The Criminal Justice System (CJS), chiefly responsible in dealing with convictions, has over time come to be increasingly questioned and scrutinized for its role (or lack-there-of) in executing justice in many cases.

The cases of Steven Truscott, Williams Mullins-Johnson, and many others in the course readings (2015), are just a few examples that bring to light the flawed nature of the CJS. With the absence of a trustworthy justice system and the intimidating factors that are attached to it, the accused may wrongfully admit to committing a crime in order to escape torturous and tedious investigation strategies. Drawing from specific cases listed above and the unit research, it will be argued in this essay that the CJS does not do enough to prevent wrongful convictions. In addition, there will be discussion on the problems encountered when requiring a prisoner to accept responsibility for his/her crime before being granted parole. Finally, there will then be a focus on the conflict of remorse for the wrongly convicted, which will call for an examination of what defines justice to society, the CJS, and most importantly, the wrongfully convicted.

​The accounts of James Lockyer (Ted Talks, 2011), which included Steven Truscott and William Mullins-Johnson, are telling of what can be mistaken and misguided in criminal confrontations. Lockyer (2011) argues in his speech that the “…criminal justice system is bound to be based on people getting it right, from police, to prosecutors, to defense lawyers…and they don’t always get it right.” What is particularly interesting about this idealization of ‘not getting it right’ is that in some cases well seasoned officials intentionally misuse and abuse the system, in order to satisfy underlying motives, which are not built on serving justice. However, there were various factors such as: technology, country, context, time, country leadership, ethnic divisions, and the media, that also played critical roles in many of these cases. For instance, in both Truscott and Mullin’s case, context played a big part of the injustices.

​For Truscott and Mullins, context played a big role in their wrongful conviction cases. The context of Truscott’s case was a factor primarily because it took place in the 1950s, a time when technology was just being born in Canadian society and the death penalty was still an option. 

Technology is an important factor in both of the cases because they were both ultimately acquitted based on improved medical practices. Even when Mullin’s case was re-opened, most of the key evidence had been destroyed, so the genetic testing wasn’t extremely helpful.However, Lockyer (2011) argued on behalf of Mullins’ case that from the beginning the justice system was not concerned about the validity of the evidence. Beyond the fact that the doctor in Mullin’s case supposedly “misplaced” the forensic slides, police and doctor misconduct, and no connecting evidence, the system somehow got away with forcing Mullins into the role of a victim of both bad pathology and more significantly, the justice system. Mullins further believed that his cultural heritage (being Aboriginal) played a factor in his accusation, with inequality and systematic racism at the center; arguably occurring too often still today (Campbell, 2012).

​In Truscott’s case, age played a big factor. Truscott was only 14 years old when he was served and his witnesses (ex: friend Phillip, age 10) were all very young (2011). The police took advantage of this factor and intimidated Truscott, without having any real evidence. In the Fifth Estate video (2011), Truscott claims that he became very tired and confused during the police questioning, saying in his interview, “What happened to the word investigation?” It is obvious in hindsight that the investigation was not done on multiple levels. Lockyer (2011) argues this further within his speech that injustices usually are a result of multiple wrong doings, not just one error. For Truscott, by refusing to admit to a crime he did not commit because of the failure of the justice system, he was labeled as devious, rebellious and/or unremorseful. Because of his innocence, Truscott persistently refused to attend programs or apologize on the account, which hardened his situation with the justice system. However, considering the context, as years progressed, especially in the 60s, the justice system began being questioned about its rigid adaptation to the coming society and justice. In other words, when people came of age in the mid 60s, they started to see Truscott as a victim of authority and after a lot of pressure, the Supreme Court re-opened the case (2011).

​Although Truscott was able to walk free in society after his wrongful sentence, the stigma and label of a convicted murderer haunted him for years and still affects his and many other lives daily. Others that admit they are guilty however, also get to walk free in society through the establishment of Parole. Unlike the past, Campbell and Denov (2012) argued that factors such as: eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, false confessions, the use of jail house informants, professional and institutional misconduct and racial bias, affect every decision now-a days. The continuous need to adapt to society has caused the justice system to fall behind in its role, which sometimes leads to misdiagnosed situations like the idea of lack of remorse being mistaken as only psychopathology (Weisman, 2012). This is again a problem with Parole because people may agree to a plea deal or even falsely admit guilt in order to have the option of Parole. While Parole may be extremely deserving and beneficial in some cases, the requirement to show remorse is very conflicting and contradictory to the system itself. As Weisman argues, “these justifications for leniency lose their force if the expression remorse is strategic rather than genuine” (2011, p. 256). ​​​​​​​​​​

The wrongfully convicted cases above, demonstrate the ability of the justice system to make errors. Recognizing this, the system cannot expect society to change without transforming itself first.

References:

Campbell, K. (2012). Wrongful Convictions in Canada: Causes, Consequences, and Responses. ​In Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader (5th ed.). (p.243-252). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson ​education.

Campbell, K. & Myriam, D. (2012). Innocent but Presumed Guilty: The Wrongful Conviction of ​William Mullins-Johnson. In Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader (5th ed).(p.225-242). ​Toronto, Ontario: Nelson education.

Peter, T. (2015). Unit Lecture Notes. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba.

Weisman, Richard. (2012). Why Say Sorry When I Didn’t do it? Remorse and the ​Dilemma of the Wrongfully Convicted. In Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader (5th ​ed.). (p.253-264). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson education.

Steven Truscott: His Word against History (The Fifth Estate – 49 minutes), ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp8WH2x1JLA.

The Defence of the Wrongly Convicted: James Lockyer (Ted Talks – 20 minutes), ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k22MJpgTUiM.

Williams Mullins-Johnson (10 minutes), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N-​Na0PksHo