LAW3546 Miscarriages of Justice | Get Solution

Miscarriage of justice is referred to the failure of the court or the judicial system to attain the ends of justice which means giving punishment to an innocent person for a crime which is not committed by him. The issue of miscarriage of justice has been highlighted by the number of wrongful convictions of innocent people. The growing number of wrongful convictions show the failure of the criminal justice system due to which innocent parties suffer. In Australia, the government is focusing on addressing the issue of wrongful convictions by making changes in the criminal justice system, however, the data regarding these actions and their effectiveness is not available (Robertson, 2012). In case of the United States, wrongful conviction is a major issue which has shown that the US criminal justice system has failed as well. In this essay, the criminal justice system of the United States and Australia will be evaluated and compared to see how both of these works. This essay will analyse why limited information is available regarding the number of wrongful convictions and their reasons in Australia. This essay will also evaluate the desire of the government of both nations to address this issue by making changes in their criminal justice system.

One of the key reasons for failure of the government to address the issue of wrongful convictions is the failure of the criminal justice system in the country. The United States criminal justice system is focused on implementing a series of agencies and institutions which identifies and catches lawbreakers in order to punish them for their crimes to protect the innocent parties. It is not represented by a single institute; rather, there is a large network of systems at different levels such as state, federal, and special jurisdiction including military courts which works together to serve justice in the country (Lynch, 2014). The criminal laws in the country are recognised by the Constitution of the nation. The issue of wrongful conviction can be recognised by evaluation of the components of the criminal justice system in the country. The first component is referred to the law enforcement which is the process in which the crime of a person is detected. This operation is conducted by police officers or special agencies who prepare a report by investigating witness and the location of the crime to catch the crime perpetrator (Correctional Officer, 2018). The second component is adjudication in which the court entertains the case. It includes various procedures such as pre-trial services, arraignment, trial, and sentencing (Reiman & Leighton, 2015). The third component is corrections in which the criminals are given a chance to rehabilitation. The primary reason of wrongful conviction is the failure of the first and second component in the US criminal justice system. If the police officers failed to collect relevant and correct evidence regarding a person and the court also fails to correctly evaluate the case, then a person is wrongfully convicted.

The reason for wrongful convictions in Australia is also the failure of its criminal justice system due to which innocent people are convicted rather than those individuals who have actually committed the crimes. Similarly, as the criminal justice system in the United States, there are a number of institutes which jointly work together in the criminal justice system in Australia. These institutes include federal, state and territory based courts and agencies that are authorised by the government to administer the criminal justice system in Australia (Baldry, Clarence, Dowse & Trollor, 2013). The failure of these agencies to do their jobs correctly resulted in wrongful convictions of innocent people. For example, the police officers are authority to conduct investigations in cases to collect relevant evidence and present them before the court. Such evidences are evaluated by the court to determine whether or not the person has committed the crime as per the allegations. It is a complex procedure due to which many times the officers and agencies failed to maintain a standard of care which resulted in wrongful conviction of an innocent person. There are many powers and authorities given to the convicted person to prove that he/she is not guilty for the crime as per the allegations, however, these procedures resulted in increasing the time which delays the procedure of judicial system (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Wrongful convictions are the product of failure of the government and administrative authorities to ensure that the process is followed with appropriate care so that people who have not committed any crimes are not punished for them.

Fewer data is available regarding the issue of wrongful convictions in Australia than compared to the United States because the government did not address this issue properly, and there is lack of awareness between the public as well. The current judicial system is already struggling to provide judgement in cases within appropriate time to reduce the number of case. The delay in justice is equal to no justice due to which many times the agencies rushed to provide judgement in a particular case due to which innocent people are wrongfully convicted. However, this issue is highlighted in Australia due to media and social media posts which have increased the awareness regarding this issue due to which the government is forced to take actions regarding implementation of policies which are focused on addressing this issue. The public is becoming aware of the issue of wrongful conviction due to which a pressure is also put on the judicial system in the country to ensure that they maintain a high standard especially when it comes to cases in which the parties are given the punishment for a long sentence in jail. The case of Ronald Ryan is a good example in which he was wrongfully convicted due to the failure of the criminal justice system. Ryan had a troubled childhood, and he was alleged for shooting a prison guard. More than a dozen witnessed admitted that they saw Ryan shooting the prison guard based on which the court sentenced him to death. After his death, new evidence was presented, and the person who actually shot the prison guard was caught. It was admitted by two other guards that the gun of Ryan was jammed due to which it was impossible for him to shot the prison guard. The death punishment of Ryan was a major turning point after which the death punishment was abolished in Australia (Nedim, 2015). This example shows that even after following a thorough procedure, the risk of wrongful conviction still exists.

There are fewer data available for the prevalence and cause of wrongful convictions in Australia; however, most of the reasons in both countries due to which innocents are wrongfully convicted are similar. One of the major issues of wrongful conviction is withholding of exculpatory evidence and in Australia 29 cases were identified in 2013 in which this was the reason for wrongful conviction. Another reason is faulty scientific evidence which was identified in 30 cases. False confessions were identified to be wrong in 31 cases in a study which was conducted in wrongful convictions (Weathered, 2012). These three elements are the key pillars on which the judgement of the court is based. It shows that it is difficult for the courts to ensure that they are able to identify the correct perpetrator in a particular case, and they are not giving punishment to an innocent party. These elements are also the reasons for wrongful convictions in the United States. There are many other reasons as well due to which innocent parties are wrongfully convicted in these two nations. For example, if the defendant is young and has a criminal history, then it becomes difficult for him to protect himself from a wrongful conviction because it is assumed that the person has committed the crime once again (Dioso-Villa, 2015). A weak prosecution case is also a major reason due to which the actual criminals are not punished by the court and the innocent parties are convicted for their actions. A weak defence due to lack of resources to hire a solid legal help is another key reason. In most cases, the lawyers provided by the courts to parties who are unable to hire them are not interested in the case at all. They did not push themselves to collect evidence or build a strong case to ensure that the innocent party is protected due to which the number of wrongful convictions cases is increasing (Hamer, 2014). Thus, these are some of the reasons due to which the innocent people are wrongfully convicted in both Australia and the United States.

Other than failure of the criminal justice system, there are many other social and political reasons due to which the number of cases relating to wrongful convictions is increasing in both Australia and the United States. Racism is a major issue in both countries which adversely affect the people. It is also a key reason for wrongful convictions in both nations. For example, in the United States, black people suffer racism due to which they did not have access to better health care or educational facilities (Lawson, 2012). They are forced to indulge in crimes from their childhood which makes it difficult for them to change their lifestyle. Similarly, people who are not criminals but lives near or with other criminals are considered as criminals by many people. The racism has affected the jurisdiction system in the United States along with its components. For example, the police officers are racist towards black people, and they are more likely to hold them liable for crimes which they did not commit. In many cases, the police officers plan evidence against accused due to which they suffer criminal charges even if they did not commit the crimes themselves. Similarly, in Australia, the aboriginal people suffer racism due to which they did not have access to appropriate health care and education facilities. These people are more likely to indulge in criminal activities since they did not have access to appropriate facilities to fulfil their basic needs. The innocent people who live with or near other criminals are also more likely to get wrongfully convicted based on stereotypes (Eades, 2014). The police and the judicial system did not consider their rights, and these individuals also did not have access to resources so that they can appeal in higher courts to prove themselves innocent due to which the number of cases involving wrongful convictions is increasing in Australia.

The government in both countries are adopting various measures to address the issue of wrongful conviction in order to eliminate the number of cases involving wrongful convictions and providing relief to parties who are wrongfully convicted. Australia is falling behind than compared to other nations in terms of identifying and addressing the issue of wrongful conviction in the country. One of the biggest remedies which are available for the innocent party is the right to appeal to the higher court to re-evaluate the case and prove his/her innocence (Dioso-Villa, 2014). However, as discussed earlier, it is difficult for individuals who did not have appropriate resources to prove their innocent due to lack of money. People who did not understand the procedure of the judicial system finds it difficult to appropriate appeal in the higher courts to prove their innocence. They are not able to get appropriate legal help from lawyers are willing to work harder to prove their innocence. Moreover, the number of appeals is increasing continuously, and the rich criminals use this option to continue to delay the judgement in their case or prove that they are innocent even if they have committed the crime. There are many governmental and non-governmental institutes which are focused on addressing this issue as well. These institutes are targeted towards providing appropriate legal and financial assistance to innocent parties to assist them in proving their innocence (Edmond & Vuille, 2013). However, these institutes have not proven effective in Australia since the number of cases involving wrongful conviction has not reduced.

The government focuses on providing remedies to individuals or their families who are wrongfully convicted to address this issue which is not an appropriate way to deal with the same. According to Rowlings (2017), there are 7 percent prisoners in Australia who are innocent in which both men and women are included. These people are found innocent based on a three-year investigation which is conducted by Civil Liberties Australia. The criminal legal system of Australia is adopted from the English legal system along with which the nuances and issues relating to the legal system are adopted as well. The government of the United Kingdom has taken a solid measure to address the issue of wrongful conviction around twenty years back. The government introduced a Criminal Cases Review Commission which is based in Birmingham. The government has provided appropriate authority and power to CCRC to refer back the cases involved criminal conduct of parties if they consider that there is a real possibility in the case that the court can reduce the sentence or the person is wrongfully convicted. The CCRC is a completely independent organisation which did not work for the court, the police or the government (Hamer, 2014). However, it has given authority to collect evidence and information from public bodies which include police officers, courts, local councils, and others. A similar measure can be adopted by the Australian government to identify the number of cases in which innocent people are wrongfully convicted (Griffin, 2012).

In the United States, the National Summit on Wrongful Convictions resulted in building a system approach which is targeted towards reducing the number of cases involving wrongful convictions by improving policing policies. These policies assist the police officers in critically identifying eyewitness, DNA evidence, avoid biases, and recognise false confessions. Based on all these elements, the government focuses on reducing the number of cases in which people are wrongfully convicted. Moreover, Australian government granted $1.3 million to an indigenous man who was wrongfully convicted for five years which shows that the government is improving its policies to provide remedies to parties who are wrongfully convicted (Wahlquist, 2018). However, stopping these cases is more important than providing remedies to innocent parties to end wrongful convictions completely.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system in Australia and the United States has failed to ensure that innocent parties are not convicted wrongfully especially in criminal cases. Both justice systems have failed in the process of law enforcement and adjudication due to which the number of cases involving wrongful convictions is increasing. The courts are heavy reliable on solid evidence which include eyewitnesses, DNA evidence and other scientific evidence which studies have shown can be easily fabricated. There are many other social and political factors as well due to which it becomes difficult for innocent parties to prove their innocence. In both nations, the parties can appeal to the higher court to prove their innocence. Moreover, some independent organisations are also working to prove the cases in which innocent parties are wrongfully accused. However, these procedures are not enough to reduce the number of cases involving wrongful convictions in both nations. The government is required to take reasonable steps to improve the criminal justice system and establish other independent organisations which monitor its operations to reduce the number of cases involving wrongful conviction of innocent people.

References

Baldry, E., Clarence, M., Dowse, L., & Trollor, J. (2013). Reducing Vulnerability to Harm in Adults With Cognitive Disabilities in the Australian Criminal Justice System. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3), 222-229.

Correctional Officer. (2018). Intro to the American Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from https://www.correctionalofficer.org/us-criminal-justice-system

Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Dioso-Villa, R. (2014). Out of grace: Inequity in post-exoneration remedies for wrongful conviction. UNSWLJ, 37, 349.

Dioso-Villa, R. (2015). A repository of wrongful convictions in Australia: first steps toward estimating prevalence and causal contributing factors. Flinders LJ, 17, 163.

Eades, D. (2014). The politics of misunderstanding in the legal system: Aboriginal English speakers in Queensland. Misunderstanding in Social Life, 207-234.

Edmond, G., & Vuille, J. (2013). Comparing the Use of Forensic Science Evidence in Australia, Switzerland, and the United States: Transcending the Adversarial-Nonadversarial Dichotomy. Jurimetrics, 54, 221.

Griffin, L. (2012). International Perspectives on Correcting Wrongful Convictions: The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 21, 1153.

Hamer, D. (2014). Wrongful convictions, appeals, and the finality principle: The need for a criminal cases review commission. UNSWLJ, 37, 270.

Lawson, T. F. (2012). A Fresh Cut in an Old Wound-A Critical Analysis of the Trayvon Martin Killing: The Public Outcry, the Prosecutors' Discretion, and the Stand Your Ground Law. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 23, 271.

Lynch, G. E. (2014). Our administrative system of criminal justice. Fordham L. Rev., 83, 1673.

Nedim, U. (2015). Wrongful convictions in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/wrongful-convictions-in-australia/

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2015). Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, The (Subscription): Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Robertson, J. (2012). Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(1), 83-91.

Rowlings. (2017). Prisoners in Australia? 7% are innocent. Retrieved from https://www.cla.asn.au/News/prisoners-australia-7-innocent/

Wahlquist, C. (2018). Indigenous man granted $1.3m compensation for wrongful conviction. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/18/indigenous-man-granted-13m-compensation-for-wrongful-conviction

Weathered, L. (2012). Wrongful convictions in australia. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 16.