4th Annual WML Academic Symposium

6:30pm - 6:50pm (Room 312)
Exonerated People
by Sabrina DiBenedetto

Developed under the guidance of:

Dr. Catherine Cowling
Criminal Justice

Why are so many individuals in prison for crimes they did not commit? Better yet, how do they become exonerated? These are the questions people of the public want to better understand. The word “exonerate” is defined as “The removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, duty, or blame imposed by law. The right of a party who is secondarily liable for a debt, such as a surety, to be reimbursed by the party with primary liability for payment of an obligation that should have been paid by the first party” (West's Encyclopedia of American Law). The United States Criminal Justice system has the job of serving justice appropriately by setting rules for the public. Those who break these rules are punished and are either punished by receiving a fine, time in jail or time in prison. Sometimes the Criminal Justice system fails citizens and that causes them to serve time in prison for crimes they did not commit.

People in the United States of America confess to crimes that they did not commit more often than not. This may sound erratic, but it does happen due to different techniques used by law enforcement, district attorneys and detectives. The techniques used are intimidation; persuasion and they might trick the suspect into answers (Sarokin, 2010). The Criminal Justice system’s legal foundation is based on the fact that a person is innocent until proven guilty at trial. Now the public loses confidence in the system when people of their community are charged and punished when they are in fact innocent. As stated earlier, the reasons for wrongful convictions are simple to answer. Another reason for these convictions is the community’s pressure on law enforcement officers to arrest the perpetrator (Rosen, 2002). Other factors that play a role in the trial are as follows: “inadequate identification evidence, perjury, false confessions, inadequate or misinterpreted forensic evidence, judicial bias, poor presentation of an appellate case, and difficulty in having fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage” (Rosen, 2002).