NCJ Number
190495
Journal
Justice Quarterly Volume: 18 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2001 Pages: 689-708
Date Published
September 2001
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This study explored several methodologies for estimating wrongful convictions, developed a measure based on court-ordered discharges from imprisonment, used data from RAND inmate surveys to determine the extent of convicted offenders who deny their commitment offenses, and noted the usefulness of studies of individual wrongful convictions.
Abstract
The literature and the media have documented numerous cases of wrongful conviction. However, criminologists have not yet devised a methodology for estimating the extent of such errors in the criminal justice system. Methodologies available include the use of official data, inmates’ self reports, and case study approaches. Court-ordered discharge is a broader category than wrongful conviction in that it includes both substantive and procedural errors. A series of research reports and the availability of data from the New York State Department of Correctional Services indicated an error rate of 1.4 percent and 1.0 percent in murder convictions and commitments. The finding of RAND inmate surveys that 15 percent reported wrongful convictions was perhaps not surprising, but it did not support the idea that alternative methodologies might produce similar results. Some prisoners have self-serving motives for underreporting their crimes; inmates’ perceptions of their crime may also differ from legal definitions. The analysis concluded that differing assumptions and operational definitions yielded prevalence ranges of 1 to 15 percent for wrongful convictions and indicated the need for future research to quantify the extent of the problem and aid efforts to address any systemic issues that may affect the problem. Table, footnotes, and 53 references (Author abstract modified)