Running Head: AFTER CONVICTION: EXONERATED

AFTER CONVICTION: EXONERATED
Curtis C. Dix Jr.
Prof. George Ackerman
CRJ-330
February 19, 2012

Abstract
There are many things that have been and will be discussed regarding our justice system and the justice system of other countries. Differently there are varying types of courts all throughout these other countries as well. Similarly, all countries have criminal sanctions, sentencing practices, types’ of punishment, imprisonment, and death penalties. The question I present is what about all those whom have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced and then later on exonerated based upon DNA or whatever evidence available? What about the various countries whom have taken the act in an attempt to exonerate those individuals especially here within the United States? I believe that the wrongly accused deserve to not only be exonerated from their sentence but also compensated for all the time lost due to being wrongfully convicted in the first place. Anyone that has been exonerated should be well provided for due to the simple fact that those whom have been incarcerated may have the tendency to be unprepared meeting the challenges of the world today in some shape or form. Since most topics in criminal justice systems and contrast/comparisons have been spoken of numerous of times and the idea of exonerating individuals is current plus still a fairly new field of study and concern, I will share some accounts, data, and my standpoint on this area after the conviction.
Introduction
A person should be innocent before proven guilty and the criminal justice process involves a series of steps for finding someone convicted of a crime by following certain procedures. The U.S. Constitution is supposed to ensure the protection of those rights. This is why we go through great lengths of looking for evidence and testimony in our courts of law. Despite whom the person is or what they may have done, discretion should always be used because the evidence will in many cases set the pathway for the sentence. If all the components are brought correctly to the case, then the investigations should operate accordingly and as follows from courts to sentencing. However, those that are given a guilty verdict are not always the truly guilty suspects, many innocent people have been sent to prison and there is where their nightmare begins in living color. When an innocent person is incarcerated, it is an injustice to the individual being sentenced, the families of the sentenced, and the criminal justice system altogether. Years may pass and new evidence will be introduced such as DNA testing and it will have proven that individual as innocent exonerated of their crimes. The challenge of being incarcerated is for the individual to make a transition into a “normal” life which many times can be difficult. Not only should our society do its’ part to improve the criminal justice system but also to uphold the responsibility in restoring those whom have served their time under a false conviction. If there is anything we as a society should also provide to these formerly incarcerated, it is compensation for what they have suffered. What does it mean to be exonerated? To put it simply it means to clear someone of guilt or from accusation and blame. (Merriam-Webster, 2011) The use of DNA testing helps by eliminating certain suspects by identifying whether a person was present at a crime scene or not. Unfortunately, DNA technology about three decades ago was almost nonexistent, so it was fairly common place to send an innocent man to prison. On the other side of this, the same DNA testing has set a lot of people free out of prison or jail. In all situations, those exonerated want to maintain their innocence and can do so with the assistance of attorneys and/or with organizations advocating for them through countless appeals. The process of exonerating someone can be long and tedious. When there is new evidence discovered it must be presented as a motion to dismiss the indictment or for a new trial. (NCJRS, 1996) If it was not for DNA profiling, these injustices would have never been corrected. For those who are indigent and cannot afford attorneys, the pathway to be exonerated can very difficult. The best enforcement to have in a case seeking exoneration is DNA evidence while other times, many years later, an actual eyewitness will come forward and testify on the defendant’s behalf. The problem here though is when cases such as these were based on eyewitness account at the time of their arrest those witnesses were not considered credible to begin with. (Smith, 2011) The vital part of any case is the preservation of the evidence because without it, the case does not have any grounds. The unfortunate thing about most of these cases was largely due to the defense team that was representing them at the time. If the individual finally wins their freedom, the challenges are far more consuming then they have ever known. Most of these individuals are released with only their initial possessions they arrived at the facility in. Now life has to begin, yet picking up the pieces is far more difficult, especially when those in society choose to shun them, even when the court of law has declared them innocent of their crimes.
Consequences of Wrongful Convictions What is disturbing about a lot of these cases is generally what does it say about our justice system? We are suppose to be innocent before proven guilty. The detriment that cases like these leave in their wake is far more damaging then we will ever really know, because there is a huge difference in hearing accounts and actually living it. Once you know the actual impact on the individual and their families, there needs to be urgency in not allowing this travesty to continue. It is very obvious that our justice system is “fallible and it is ambiguous”, ands someone must assume responsibility for its flaws, however the issue is extremely broad. (Bandes, 2008) There has to be some empathy because the victims’ life has been virtually destroyed. They re-enter society and still struggle for acceptance, whereas the families have had to deal with feelings of shame. It is devastating experience that destroys confidence but hope. What makes this transition into society more excruciating is not simply the humiliation of being incarcerated, but the search for the opportunity to simply start over. (Weigand, 2009) Our governments’ response in helping them as far as compensation is slow, and almost unwilling. But just to understand what life is like for these men, here are a few personal accounts on what life is like.
Exoneration Accounts Paul House who finally walked out as a free man in 2003 spent 22 years in prison for the murder of Carolyn Muncey. He is one of many that had declared his innocence from the very beginning, but with “mishandled evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, bad science and cops with tunnel vision” he was almost sentenced to death. (Balko, 2011) While behind bars he fell very ill, and never received the medical care he needed until he was releases. It was then it was determined that he had M.S. at a very denigrating stage most likely advanced by stress. House has not been formally exonerated because that label would make a big difference, but if and when that happens, he is eligible to get $50,000 for every year he was incarcerated. The probability of that is very slim, but in order for him to receive those payments, he would have to give up the Medicare he so desperately needs, without it the cost of health will be astronomical because of his disease. It is completely unfair, but that is how the system worked in his situation. Greg Bright and Earl Truvia were both convicted of murdering a 15 year old teenage boy named Eliot Porter. Witness account claims she saw a slim man and a short man chasing the victim and heard two shots shortly after, so they automatically zeroed in on the two defendants. Bright was known as Slim, and Truvia was a young man of short stature, and because of that these two men were arrested and convicted of murder in July of 1976. What makes this case more interesting is that the defendants were not acquainted with each other, not even in the slightest. Ever since their convictions, they have both fought year in and year out against all the red tape to have their case re-opened to no avail. It was due to an organization called The Innocence Project New Orleans who take their case up and conducted an investigation of their own. (Clapp, 2011) What they found out was the testimony of the star witness came from a heroine drug addict; she falsified her name because she had a criminal history of her own, and due to the location of her residence, there was no feasible way she bore witness to the things she attested to, it would have been physically impossible. (Clapp, 2011) With further insistence there were a few other things that the ball had been dropped on, but it was enough to have an acquittal on both defendants on June 24th, 2003. With the clothes on their backs and $10.00 each, they were both set free. Trying to move on after release is hard because getting jobs and trying to adjust to life outside of prison is a challenge. They are struggling to get health insurance but cannot afford it. They are living day to day, because monetarily they are in a vicious cycle of just trying to make it. Bright and Truvia are also eligible for compensation and went through all the channels to get it, but the Attorney General in Louisiana has found one way or another to delay the process. At the time of this article, the case was still in litigation. Kirk Noble Bloodsworth was wrongfully accused of raping and killing a nine year old girl and spent nine years in prison in which two of those years were on death row. (Scott, 2010) He is an exoneree who will always have guilty taped to his back, because of the nature of the crime he was accused of. He has to deal with people staring and pointing fingers, and even with being exonerated, and declared innocent, people still remember because his face was plastered all over the news. For him this nightmare will never be over, because it will follow him for the rest of his life. He cannot get his reputation back, because the bad stigma has already left its mark. And there are countless stories all with heart breaking recollections of what their lives used to be, and will never be again. Countless men and women have very similar accounts about being re-introduced to society and have found no reprieve from the state you live in, but worst yet, dealing with themselves is an entirely different issue. They have all suffered and suffered unjustly. And when they are finally released, they are dealing with all these emotions, emotions that stem from “anger and the loss of their freedom, to intense fear and betrayal.” (Putt, 2009) Judy Putt states that they too suffer from Post Traumatic Syndrome, and experience psychological break downs and have trouble re-establishing themselves into society. (2009) There is this enormous amount of pressure and fear of what others are thinking, and some do not hide it, so even though they are innocent, there are those who still believe they are every bit of guilty, that causes depression and issues at the home front, and finally those emotions can take their tolls, and it eventually divides the family, and sometimes it does not get any better from there. Prison environment can make someone who was docile become very aggressive, because in a prison environment you are fighting to stay alive and from being raped and unfortunately, that aggression combined with anger is not good. Prison has caused a high level of mistrust and they carry that with them where ever they go. (Putt, 2009) It is not fair that restitution isn’t offered for mental anguish, there has to be some responsibility to these men and women, especially when it was the government that failed them. We have a moral obligation to help them transition into a world that is no longer familiar to them. What the government offers them is a pat on the back which is merely a band aid and an insult. What compounds their pain and frustration with all the broken promises, are exonerates who are broke, unemployed and dependent on others. (Weigand, 2009) Furthermore, it continues this downward spiral of family members not wanting to deal with them anymore and so they leave home and find themselves homeless and depressed. The worst of it is that their records have yet to be expunged. We have a government that functions under what Jeremy Bentham called utilitarianism, where we believe that if our actions protect the good of many, then our actions justifies the means. In other words, getting what appears to be the guilty at any cost. A good point that Jocelyn Pollock makes in terms of utilitarianism was stated perfectly in that if the situation requires a decision between the good for an individual compared to the good of society, picking the good of society is the greater of the two, the individual will have to be sacrificed. (2010) Unfortunately that may not always be fair, especially in injustices like these. This form of action falls under the rule utilitarianism because it focuses on the long term. (Pollock, 2010) If we are a nation that believes in the rights of our citizens, whether black or white, it is out of decency that the state and/or government adhere to the compensation rules. Understandably each state needs to figure out what that amount will be, but that is one major flaw in our system. Everything we do cannot be about politics. What happened to the basics of compassion for a person’s well being? In circumstances like wrongful convictions we need to be compassionate and understanding. (Pollock, 2012) Under the concept “ethics of care” I would agree that we have a moral obligation to assist them, because they have endured enough, they truly are victims of the criminal justice system. If torture was to be defined through their experience, this would be it. It is even safe to say that money would only target their monetary issues, they also need help in overcoming their trauma and that requires the willingness to provide comprehensive treatments to help them cope, because the damage has already been done.
Preventing the Problem By all accounts this answer should be relatively simple but it honestly is not the case. After all, underneath the business suits and police uniforms, we are all human, and because of how we evaluate certain situations, it also dictates how emotionally invested we become in them. If you actually observe our justice system, it is safe to say that fair process of the law only applies to some; it would be a fair assumption to make. What we have is a dysfunction in our system, when the lines become blurred to truth and replaced with a personal crusade. There is governmental lack of conduct when evidence is being ignored. As public officials upholding the law, it should be a priority, and not to be used as ways of getting around it. If you are going to defend your client, then defend them by examining all the facts because in the initial process, the client has entrusted their well being to them.
The break down in most of these cases started with the lack of care the defense took in reviewing their case in its entirety. Yet the break down started even before that. Typically, wrongful convictions began with the police officers, where they picked a suspect and decidedly ignored any evidence that went against their beliefs. In some of the cases, police trickery was used to coerce confessions or force confessions by long drawn out interrogations, anyone under those conditions would probably buckle just so the torture can end. If there were any eyewitnesses that could have possibly swayed the case in another direction, they were never brought in for questioning.
Prosecutorial misconduct us an entirely different issue. Understandably prosecutors have more politics to deal with, and that does create a lot of pressure to deliver, but their job is designed to uphold the law, and to support justice when all else fails, they should not be the ones derailing it. You see it on television all the time, that persona that they have to win mentality, and it is this culture of winning that creates the problem when condemning a person you know may actually be innocent. Withholding evidence or misrepresenting it to sway jurors is at the cost of sending someone who is innocent into a situation they do not deserve. If it is all in the name of stating that justice has been served it is so unbelievably dishonest.
There is actually no easy way to put it, but it is corrupt behavior that should have dire consequences. As public officials, they took an oath to uphold the law; to have a code of conduct that clearly defines that one must look past their own emotions and self interest in making moral judgment becoming of a state official. There is no room for prejudices, self empowerment and racial profiling. Some have become desensitized by the injustices they see that they forget that there are people out there who are actually innocent.
When officials start crossing the lines of justice and making their own rules as they go along, this is the result, a bunch of men and women being exonerated because their cases were not processed correctly because of corruption. You cannot blame them for being angry and untrustworthy of the justice system because it clearly failed them. Officials need to own up to their failure to protect, to do what was right and swore to do, and just take responsibility. Unethical behavior should be taken seriously because it will eventually affect someone else, especially in the criminal justice field. Inevitably what happens as a result is that the behavior has trickled downward from an environment that does not challenge their employees to have higher ethical standards, or have taken notice of the behavior and failed to reprimand them on it. It is due to lack of action on an organizations part that has created the atmosphere of deviance or misconduct to continue. (Pollock, 2010) A way to prevent misconduct is by primarily providing training every few months to enforce the codes of conduct as a reminder of what is expected of them. Secondly, administer background investigations to make sure that there are no surprises on their records that may not have been divulged to the employer, and most importantly to have training in ethics amongst other interventions to prevent burnout. (Pollock, 2010) If the study of ethics is reinforced periodically, it will help criminal justice officials recognize culpability for poor moral principles. (Banks, 2009)
Conclusion
The mistake that these victims make is in thinking that “the more they cooperate with investigators that they will somehow change the outcome.” (Brown, 1990) This unfortunately is a false assumption, because in actuality the more compelled a victim is in helping investigators, the more probable it is that they already think they are guilty. More often than not, the victims were found guilty before they were proven innocent, and with the justice system it actually defeats the purpose. What it does is make is a mockery of it because the exonerated are put in a position where they have to defend themselves. When you look at all the factors that got them there to begin with, it just does not make sense how things got so misconstrued. It is wrong to assume that people who are in prison obviously did something to deserve it and if one thing is clear that is apparently not true for everyone. The truth is there are people fighting for their lives because they really are innocent! To imagine it is very difficult because we cannot relate, nevertheless, they have fought for freedom on the inside, and now they have to fight on the outside too, and as a society we are leaving them to do it on their own. We owe it to them out of basic humanity because they have lost their freedom and the liberty to live their lives, to start a family or perhaps watch their children grow up. We owe it to them because of what could have been a good life, with a decent paying job and the alienation from friends and family. We owe it to them because they will never get those years back. They do not have good memories to reach towards, what they do have is the anguish of prison time for something they did not commit. They come out of prison with no social status other than that they are an exonerated. Society will either embrace them or make life difficult for them, and many have endured both sides. Morally it is right thing to do. We cannot think to say we are the land of the free, and mean it is only true for certain people. It is a factor that will take a long time to heal for these victims, and at least a financial recompense will afford them the opportunity to start over, and not have them feel, we have failed them again.

References
Bandes, S.A. (2008). Framing Wrongful Conviction. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/view/405/303
Smith, S.E. (2012). How Does Someone Get Exonerated? Retrieved February 15, 2012, http://www.wisegeek.com/how-does-someone-get-exonerated.htm
NCJRS (1996). Convicted by Juries: Exonerated by Science. Retrieved February 15, 2012, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf
Balko, R. (2011). Wrongful Convictions. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://www.theagitator.com/2011/06/08/my-reason-feature-on-wrongful-convictions/

Brown, T. and Gaines, J. (1990). Joyce Ann Brown: Justice Denied, Texas: Noble Press Inc.
Clapp, J. (2011). Wrongfully Convicted People Are Due Compensation, The Times-Picayune. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/03/wrongfully_convicted_people_ar.html

Exonerated. (2011). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.
Pollock, Joycelyn M., Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Crime Justice, 6e, Thomsom, 2010.
Putt, J. (2009). Compensation for Wrongful Convictions, Australian Institute of Criminology.
Scott, L. (2010). “It never ends: The Psychological Impact of Wrongful Conviction, 5 crim, L. Brief 10
Weigand, H. (2009). Rebuilding a life: The Wrongfully Convicted and Exonerated.
Banks, C. (2004). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications