Introduction
The strength of the criminal justice relies on its accuracy in clearing those who are innocent and charging the ones who are guilty. Briefly, wrongful conviction happens when there is a violation of individual rights or a person is sentenced despite not being guilty of the charges. According to Pozzulo et al., (2020), 90% of the wrongful sentencing in the United States is a result of the error of an observer confirming that an innocent suspect is a perpetrator. Notably, even the people who are objective and honest can be mistaken in recalling the face of a person and interpreting events. The reason is that human memory naturally filters information and either dismiss or keep some facts. Instances of court verdicts being overturned after other assessment procedures such as Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) procedures were done. The objective of this paper is to discuss wrongful convictions in criminal investigation focusing on faults and the ethical issues caused by tainted line-ups.
Ethical Responsibility to Avoid Wrongful Convictions
The court system has an ethical obligation to ensure that there is justice accorded to all suspects during the trial period. The prosecutor and defense lawyers, conservatives, and liberals are all concerned about the administration of justice when there is no accuracy in naming the offenders. One way to ensure that eyewitnesses provide an accurate identification or nonidentification is by having a fair lineup composition. Moreover, Brown (2020) suggests that to minimize error it is wise to place the duty of care either on the party which commits it or the people who benefit from the mistake. The objective is to lower the chances of harming an innocent person and ensure that they are well compensated.
The law enforcers must also do their best to minimize unnecessary harm caused by wrongful conviction as soon as new information emerges. As stated by Brown (2020), “a party who does not challenge an error at trial forfeits, partially or wholly, its entitlement to appellate review” (p.625). If a verdict made by a junior court fails to take into account some key evidence or follow the right procedures in verifying testimonials then it is wise to appeal. During trial reviews, mismatch in testimonials can be identified following procedural rules. Thus, it is essential to follow standard investigation protocols in ensuring that the testimonials are reliable and accurate when presented for a legal proceeding.
Process of Identifying Suspects and Ethical Issues
The process of identifying a suspect with respect to a specific crime can be cumbersome to the law enforcement officers. According to Grigel (2019) unreliable testimony is common in the criminal justice system because some witnesses “misperceive, misremember, [or] misdescribe” individuals on crime scene (p.461). Others lie for status, money, or without a reason when identifying people during police lineups. Often, the police utilize some tested and approved procedures for legitimate identification which is accurate and justifiable. There are a few incidences where such process may not be needful such as when an offender is caught violating the law or the victim knows the perpetrator.
The police can select a suspect and then test the ability of the witnesses to name him as the perpetrator. If the identification is positive then an apprehension, search warrant, and subsequent questioning are initiated. Depending on the case being handled the identification process varies significantly. According to McAdoo & Gronlund (2016), relative judgment theory which uses a dual confirmatory process is effective in minimizing faulty identification. Interviews, lengthy biometric testing, photographic array, live lineup, confirmatory photographs, and show up and field views are some of the most common suspect identification strategies (Pozzulo et al., 2020). Some procedures such as year and mug books can occasionally be used for a similar purpose.
Ethical Issues in Wrongful Identification
One of the common challenges is no representation at any point in suspect identification process. For example, there are instances where the journalists may give a crime report and implicate an individual when there is no official charge for an offense. Other non-governmental organizations also take the role of deciding a case using just the laymen. In such cases, a person may be declared guilty by unqualified men hence increasing the chances of faulty identification. Moral concern can also emerge in establishing a relationship between the attorney and the client outside the court. The lawyer may fail to seek consent during investigation, which violates the rights of the client.
Secondly, there can be a problem in the lawyer trying to uphold the duty of confidentiality as well as a client-attorney privilege. Without the consent of a client, the lawyer is forbidden to reveal relevant information that they have discussed (Pozzulo et al., 2020). The problem is that another person may be wrongfully convicted for the crime. The omission of significant information may also result in the jury or the judge being misguided and letting a guilty person free. Conflict of interest is another concern when the attorney needs to protect someone and becomes unprofessional in conduct.
Conclusion
Wrongful conviction is a significant legal and ethical concern that can weak the legal judicial system. Many factors can lead to such an error but error in eyewitness account is common. Verdicts continue to be overturned in appellate courts after other confirmatory procedures such as DNA tests are carried out and an offender is found innocent. Following standard criminal-justice procedures enhances accuracy in legitimate identification. The law enforcers must be vigilant to uphold the law by conducting investigations and representing clients morally and professionally.
References
Brown, D. K. (2020). Does it matter who objects? rethinking the burden to prevent errors in criminal process. Texas Law Review, 98(4), 625-677. Web.
Grigel, K. B. (2019). Credibility interrogatories in criminal trials. Stanford Law Review, 71(2), 461-511. Web.
McAdoo, R. M., & Gronlund, S. D. (2016). Relative judgment theory and the mediation of facial recognition: Implications for theories of eyewitness identification: Principles and implications. Cognitive Research, 1(1), 1-13. Web.
Pozzulo, J., Pica, E., & Sheahan, C. (2020). Familiarity and conviction in the criminal justice system: Definitions, theory, and eyewitness research. Oxford University Press