Smoke but No Fire

IF 0.4 4区 社会学
J. Henry
{"title":"Smoke but No Fire","authors":"J. Henry","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv128fpjd","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nearly one-third of exonerations involve the wrongful conviction of an innocent person for a crime that never actually happened, such as when the police plant drugs on an innocent person, a scorned lover invents a false accusation, or an expert mislabels a suicide as a murder. Despite the frequency with which no-crime convictions take place, little scholarship has been devoted to the subject. This Article seeks to fill that gap in the literature by exploring no-crime wrongful convictions as a discrete and unique phenomenon within the wrongful convictions universe. This Article considers three main factors that contribute to no-crime wrongful convictions: official misconduct in the form of police lies, aggressive policing tactics, and prosecutorial malfeasance; the mislabeling of a non-criminal event as a crime; and outright fabrications by informants and non-governmental witnesses with motivations to lie. This Article then provides an empirical analysis of existing data from the National Registry of Exonerations about no-crime exonerations and compares data between no-crime exonerations and actual-crime exonerations in terms of contributing factors, crime types, and race and gender distinctions. In doing so, this Article demonstrates that no-crime wrongful convictions, where a person is convicted of a crime that did not occur, are materially different from actual-crime wrongful convictions, where the wrong person is convicted of a crime that did occur but was committed by another. Finally, this Article concludes with policy reform recommendations that specifically seek to reduce the incidence of no-crime wrongful convictions.","PeriodicalId":51824,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv128fpjd","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nearly one-third of exonerations involve the wrongful conviction of an innocent person for a crime that never actually happened, such as when the police plant drugs on an innocent person, a scorned lover invents a false accusation, or an expert mislabels a suicide as a murder. Despite the frequency with which no-crime convictions take place, little scholarship has been devoted to the subject. This Article seeks to fill that gap in the literature by exploring no-crime wrongful convictions as a discrete and unique phenomenon within the wrongful convictions universe. This Article considers three main factors that contribute to no-crime wrongful convictions: official misconduct in the form of police lies, aggressive policing tactics, and prosecutorial malfeasance; the mislabeling of a non-criminal event as a crime; and outright fabrications by informants and non-governmental witnesses with motivations to lie. This Article then provides an empirical analysis of existing data from the National Registry of Exonerations about no-crime exonerations and compares data between no-crime exonerations and actual-crime exonerations in terms of contributing factors, crime types, and race and gender distinctions. In doing so, this Article demonstrates that no-crime wrongful convictions, where a person is convicted of a crime that did not occur, are materially different from actual-crime wrongful convictions, where the wrong person is convicted of a crime that did occur but was committed by another. Finally, this Article concludes with policy reform recommendations that specifically seek to reduce the incidence of no-crime wrongful convictions.
有烟无火
近三分之一的无罪开脱涉及对无辜者的错误定罪,比如警察将毒品栽赃给无辜者,被蔑视的情人捏造虚假指控,或者专家将自杀错误地贴上谋杀的标签。尽管无罪定罪的案例屡见不鲜,但关于这一课题的学术研究却很少。本文试图通过探索非犯罪错误定罪作为错误定罪宇宙中一个离散和独特的现象来填补这一空白。本文考虑了导致非犯罪错误定罪的三个主要因素:警察谎言形式的官方不当行为,激进的警务策略和检察官渎职;将非犯罪事件错误地定性为犯罪;以及举报人和非政府证人出于撒谎动机的完全捏造。然后,本文对国家免罪登记处现有的无犯罪免罪数据进行了实证分析,并从促成因素、犯罪类型、种族和性别差异等方面比较了无犯罪免罪和实际犯罪免罪的数据。在这样做的过程中,本条表明,一个人被判犯有没有发生的罪行的非犯罪错误定罪,与实际犯罪错误定罪有实质性不同,在实际犯罪错误定罪中,错误的人被判犯有确实发生但由另一个人犯下的罪行。最后,本文总结了政策改革建议,具体寻求减少非犯罪错误定罪的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The American Criminal Law Review is the nation"s premier journal of criminal law. The ACLR is the most-cited criminal law review in the nation, and it also ranks among the country"s most-cited law reviews of any kind. Recently, ExpressO, an online submission service for legal scholars, ranked the ACLR as the top subject-specific law review in the area of Criminal Law and Procedure. Published four times a year, the ACLR provides timely treatment of significant developments in constitutional and criminal law through articles contributed by leading scholars and practitioners, and through notes authored by the journal"s student staff.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信