Exoneration Is Wrong

Why is it that our justice system uses so little research when there is so much at stake? During my research, I found that the limited extent of research done has caused many innocent human beings to be punished with their entire lives, many years of their lives which they will never get back, and often times they pay with their lives. The frequency of innocent people going in the system, at no fault of their own, and the price they pay brings me to the conclusion that exoneration needs more support from the Innocence Project which would result in less exonerations.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, exonerations are typically the result of a defendant who has “been acquitted of all charges related to the crime that placed

them on death row, had all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row dismissed by the prosecution, or been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence.” Therefore, exoneration is the action of officially absolving someone from blame. In addition, many of the exonerations have been done Florida, this means that most cases in Florida need more evidence before convicting. According to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty exonerations happen 1 in every 10 case that has gone on to be capital punishment.
While reading Travis Andrew’s article, “Man Spent 28 Years in Prison After His Friend Accused Him of Murder” it helped to prove why more research should be done in convicting men. In Andrew’s article, he describes what happened to Johnny Small. In July of 1988, Small’s childhood friend David Bollinger took the stand and lied saying that Small had killed a woman (Andrew). While Small was in prison, his mother died of an illness and he was not able to see her because she could not make the trip after about six years. Being that Small was denied parole, he thought about killing himself to make it easier. Small also said he thought about climbing the fence and letting the guards shoot him down.
In 2012, Small’s hope was restored when David Bollinger contacted the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission to state that “he doesn't think Small killed anyone” (Andrew). When the police offered $5,000 to anyone who had more information about that night Small’s classmate Nina Raiford called with a tip saying she saw Small leave the pet shop where the woman was killed (Andrew). The first time the police questioned Bollinger he said he did not have any information. Bollinger lied because his father told him to and the prosecutor was going to pin the murder on him if did not. Small was not mad when he saw Bollinger; he was grateful. Small states, "I finally got a shot and she's not gonna be there to see it," talking about his mother (Andrew). This article explained how many of the people are ripped away from their families for things that they were falsely accused of doing.
In Margaret Berger’s article, she explains that one obvious result of DNA exonerations has been the enactment of legislation regulating post-conviction DNA testing. The impact on our justice system goes beyond formal statutory change. According to Berger, “the DNA exonerations are changing attitudes towards the death penalty, are focusing attention on how forensic laboratories operate, and are leading to the stricter scrutiny of forensic science.” Furthermore, this quote means that the more evidence we take we get to helping exonerate people and stop locking up innocent people.
In the article, “Coroners and Forensic Science,” the author explains that because of the extreme shortage of forensic pathologists and licensed doctors willing to work full-time in death investigation, it is unrealistic to expect to be able to replace the coroner system completely.

Instead, state governments should provide more funding and training for county coroner’s so they can do their jobs well with the proper facilities and equipment. Coroners are important elected officials and should not be replaced by appointed medical examiners who are not accountable to the public (“Coroners and Forensic Science”). Electing coroners with little medical experience and allowing them to perform autopsies with no real regulatory oversight is a deeply flawed and outdated method for conducting death investigations. As stated in the article, “autopsies should be performed only by licensed physicians, preferably those specializing in forensic pathology, and in offices run by certified medical examiners (“Coroners and Forensic Science”).” Furthermore, the U.S. should have a federal department that can impose a uniform set of standards for death investigation in every county, instead of the confusing hodgepodge of systems it has

currently.
In the controversial article, “DNA Evidence,” DNA testing is an important way for those who have been wrongfully convicted to prove their innocence. Such testing is not expensive, and prisoners should be given a chance at exoneration. The article states that, “law enforcement agencies should collect DNA from criminal suspects in order to determine if they may be guilty of other unsolved crimes (“DNA Evidence”)”. On the other hand, post-convictions DNA tests often do not conclusively prove innocence.
In the article “DNA Evidence”, it is implied that collecting DNA from suspects who have not been put on trial or convicted of any crime violates their constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Indeed, opponents argue, DNA evidence is simply not useful in many cases. In fact, “Good DNA material is available in only one in five cases: often there is not enough DNA for a sample, of it is old or contaminated,” the Economist noted in 2002. In addition, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that each state may determine its own procedure for granting post-conviction DNA tests. This proves that the evidence found in each case is not always specifically be DNA.
In this article, “Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished", Kim Evans claims that capital punishment is a barbaric way to deal with murder. It is senseless to kill those who kill and it is morally wrong. We can no longer live an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is hypocritical. Plus, capital punishment is an easy way out for the criminals. Furthermore, Evans claims that convicts would rather have suffered in jail for the rest of their life without parole. Usually murderers do not fear death, so this type of punishment is not a deterrent.
Not only that, but the injection method is one of the most painful ways to kill; it just collapses the inmate’s lungs before having the chance to yell in pain (Evans). Plus, the injection chemicals are becoming more and more rare, thus making it more expensive with each injection. In fact, it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life without parole than it is to kill them (Evans). It does not make sense to spend more money on a morally questionable act that has shown no signs of determent.
In the article “More Research in Forensic Science Is Needed to Prevent Wrongful Conviction,” Peter Neufeld discusses the issues with forensic science. Neufeld is the co-director of a group called the Innocence Project, which he states is a, “national nonprofit litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and to reforming the criminal justice system” (Neufeld). The entire committee of the Innocence Project all share the same beliefs that wrongful convictions are contrary to the basic principle of criminal justice. In the article, Neufeld claims that we need more evidence to convict a person. He also claims that forensic scientists should be sure with hardcore evidence to convict anyone. In Neufeld’s article, he states that some crime lab directors estimate that a mere 10 percent of the cases lend themselves to DNA testing, but the other 90 percent remaining DNA testing cannot help us identify the truth. In other words, he is saying the need to be as sure as possible about the validity and reliability of non-DNA forensic evidence is essential for public safety and critical to the integrity of criminal justice.
In the article, “Lethal Injection: Is lethal injection a constitutional method of execution?” supporters argue punishment should be based not on age but on the severity of the crime. Most young people understand that crimes such as murder are wrong. Furthermore, the threat of being sentenced to death for certain crimes acts as a strong deterrent for would-be offenders. Opponents argue that the current use of non-medically trained prison personnel to administer lethal injection results in unnecessary pain for the executed. The current use of lethal injections constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Lethal Injection: Is lethal injection a constitutional method of execution?”).
Daniel Pollack begins his article, "Mission: improbable: getting exonerated from a child sexual abuse conviction" by explaining what exoneration is.

Pollack states that an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence. Then he goes on state what he found in his research about exonerees. In a Scientific American article entitled, "Many prisoners on death row are wrongfully convicted," it was reported that researchers estimated, using the NRE database, that more than 340 U.S. inmates who could have been exonerated were sentenced to death since 1973. This came to a 4.1 percent rate of false conviction (Pollack). Freedom from false incarceration is always a long shot. Being exonerated is the ultimate

improbability.
In the article, “The Fairbanks Four's Brutal Fight for Freedom; Four men held in prison 18 years for murder had to make a cruel choice: Get out if they promise to not sue,” Josh Saul explains what the young men had to go through while in prison and after prison. The first victim of false evidence is Eugene Vent, who was accused of beating a 15-year-old near death. The interrogator also wanted Vent to testify against the other three boys. The interrogator later found out that the evidence was fabricated. Defense attorneys for the Fairbanks Four filed appeals, but they were all rejected in the courts. Then new evidence surfaced. A star government witness recanted and said police coerced him. The biggest breakthrough came in 2012, when a convicted killer confessed he was there when his friend beat Hartman to death (Evans).