Abstract
A foundation of the American criminal justice system is that justice is rendered for criminal wrongdoers; a related belief is that punishing the innocent is rare and wholly unacceptable. False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent is a narrative of a personal and professional journey that parallels a significant recognition by the American legal system—not all convicted and imprisoned offenders are guilty. Authors Jim Petro, former Ohio attorney general, and Nancy Petro examine the myriad of reasons why innocent people are serving time and document the growing application of DNA analysis to postconviction relief. While these intertwined narratives affirm the exonerative value of forensic evidence, the authors offer an important corollary observation: overwhelmingly, biological evidence does not exist. Arguably, we can infer that inestimable numbers remain incarcerated without recourse to forensic redress. Consequently, preventing and correcting mistakes in justice requires broad-based advances in practice, policy, and the law, and transformations in knowledge.
False Justice explores conviction error—its persistent, systemic causes, as well as promising fixes—and establishes the need to engage citizens in promoting change and holding the justice system accountable for its shortcomings. Reflecting the extant scholarly literature, the authors attribute “flawed verdicts” to six causes: false confessions, snitches, ineffective counsel, imperfect science, government misconduct, and eyewitness testimony. Contending that wrongful convictions are far more numerous than imagined, the authors argue that remedy is impeded by a series of intractable misconceptions concerning our criminal justice system and the individuals it processes.
The work is essentially one of advocacy, directed primarily to two major groups: first, a lay audience, as an education for the American public who remains largely unaware of these issues. In part, authors admonish criminal justice professionals, the second audience, to heed the evidence on the nature and causes of wrongful convictions. Importantly, False Justice seeks to energize the voting citizenry, who can effectively compel officials to address and prevent conviction error.
The arguments are supported by in-depth case studies, personal experience, media accounts, and somewhat limited discussion of selected scholarly work. Within the 47 short chapters, the Petros do identify this body of scholarly research, often ignored or unknown by the justice system, that could inform improvements intended to prevent mistakes. However, the book emphasizes several legal cases, predominantly convicted offenders in Ohio whose guilt was contested, as context for elucidating problems with the U.S. justice system. They illustrate how exonerating the innocent is fraught with difficulty; the extraordinary challenges to obtaining postconviction relief when physical evidence is absent; inadequate compensation, collateral consequences, and problematic transitions experienced by the wrongfully imprisoned; the media’s role; and limits to prosecutorial liability. The extensive case analysis lays the groundwork for eventually debunking the myths in the final chapters.
False Justice unfolds in four sections, underscoring both the use of DNA and what exonerations reveal about the causes of conviction error, as well as the criminal justice system emphasis on prioritizing new cases and securing convictions. Throughout, the authors identify a variety of reforms targeting police interrogations, “bad” science, eyewitness identifications, and other intransigent system flaws that contribute to miscarriages of justice. Part I, Failed Justice, elaborates the case that is central to the author’s evolution in thinking about justice system shortcomings. Clarence Elkins, convicted by testimony (later recanted) of a 6-year-old victim, was innocent, yet it took almost 8 years and identifying the actual offender to effect Elkins’ release. Seemingly at odds with his role as attorney general, Petro’s journey intersects with the Innocence Project, which has been instrumental in freeing the wrongfully convicted. This section also describes one of the first exonerations employing DNA (Gary Dotson) and introduces Michael Green, found guilty in part by faulty forensic analysis, whose eventual compensation illustrates the wide disparity between the cost of DNA testing against the enormous expense of incarceration.
Part II, Pursuing Truth, makes most extensive use of research literature in establishing the basis for system reforms. It begins by observing the difficulty in determining the number of innocent people in prison, and discloses the circumscribed rationale for Petro’s support for the death penalty, inextricably linked with the issue of wrongful convictions. The first well-documented exoneration—the Boorn brothers (1819)—demonstrates that identical factors have persistently contributed to mistakes. The authors discuss highly regarded classic and contemporary scholars and practitioners who have influenced debates and thinking about eyewitness testimony and the fragility of memory.
In Part III, Doing Justice, the author, now in private practice, formally collaborates with the Innocence Project representing Roger Dean Gillispie and serving as amicus in Osborne, argued before the Supreme Court. Gillispie highlights the power of flawed eyewitness testimony and professional misconduct in producing a conviction without evidence. This case exposes an inherent problem in the Brady violation, a presumed evidentiary safeguard. Petro’s work in developing legislative initiatives with the Innocence Project additionally reinforces the bipartisan nature of challenging horrific justice system errors.
The eight myths, mentioned in the prologue, are fully revealed in Part IV, which briefly examines and dispels these misconceptions. They are: all incarcerated offenders claim innocence; innocent people are rarely convicted; only guilty individuals confess; human mistakes produce wrongful convictions; eyewitness testimony is invaluable evidence; the appeals process corrects errors; contesting convictions dishonors crime victims; and the self-correcting nature of the justice system. Each misconception is countered with the reality, a succinct “takeaway” to stimulate clear thinking. The authors assert that reforms are contingent on changes in what people understand about the justice system, yet contemporary justice is impeded by inaccurate beliefs that collectively obscure systemic problems. In short, while the justice system is imperfect, enhanced knowledge and a commitment to truth can impel policy reform.
The ultimate goal of False Justice is ambitious, requiring multifaceted strategies by motivated citizens, scholars, enlightened criminal justice professionals and policy makers, and the media. The diversity of these stakeholders makes the use of case studies and personal experience a persuasive and appropriate method for delivering the message, particularly to the public. However, penetrating the entrenched perspectives of informed criminal justice professionals would warrant more extensive synthesis of existing social science evidence to communicate the challenging notion that the system does not universally dispense justice.
The engaging narrative sometimes meanders. Finally, the myths’ placement at the book’s conclusion conveys the impression that they are a postscript and not the work’s centerpiece. Overall, False Justice offers a unique view of the fallibility of American criminal justice that results in the indefensible imprisonment of men and women who have committed no crime.