The Shortfall of "Sorry"

Term Paper # 113274

Criminology > Criminal Justice and Corrections
Criminology > Juvenile Justice
Ethics

An examination of the cases of two men whose sentences for murders that they did not commit were overturned by The Innocence Project.

2,009 words () | 11 sources | APA | 2008 United States

Paper Summary:

This paper discusses the cases of Jeff Deskovic, who served nearly 7 years of prison time and Curtis Edward McCarty, who was in jail for 21 years and on death row, after being wrongfully convicted for murder. The author explains in detail how in both cases evidence was built up against them in an unethical manner, and in Deskovic's case, his constitutional rights as a juvenile were violated. The author describes how The Innocence Project took Deskovic's case and, by retesting the semen found in the victim with newer technology, succeeded in finding a match in the New York State DNA databank of convicted felons. McCarty appealed his case several times and was sentenced to death three times before The Innocence Project became involved and won him a new trial with fresh DNA evidence that resulted in his release.

From the Paper:

"The treatment of Deskovic while in police custody raises several procedural ethical issues as well as being a clear display of ethical injustice to the constitutional rights guaranteed to juveniles. For example, landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Kent v. United States, In re Gault, and In re Winship guaranteed specific rights to juveniles who are taken into police custody, and several of these guaranteed rights were not effectively dispensed to Deskovic. Vito & Simonsen (2004) explain that the Kent, ruling entitled juveniles to (1) A hearing, (2) To be represented by counsel at such a hearing, (3) To be given access to records considered by the juvenile court, [and] (4) A statement of the reasons in support of the waiver order (p. 165). Gault, held that a juvenile has the right to counsel and that "the child and/or parents may be represented by counsel [and that] if they cannot afford... counsel, the child and parents are... entitled to be represented by counsel at public expense" (p. 167)."

Sample of Sources Used:

Borgida, E., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.). (2007). Beyond common sense: psychological science in the courtroom. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cassell, P.G. (1998). Protecting the innocent from false confessions and lost confessions - and from Miranda. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 497-556.
Deskovic, J. (2008). Report on the conviction of Jeffery Deskovic. In Jeffery Deskovic speaks. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org/
Feibleman, J. (1985). Justice, law and culture. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff
Innocence Project (n.d.). Retrieved April, 22, 2008, from the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/