In the past years, numerous instances of wrongful convictions have been recorded on a global scale. Several decades ago an American judge sighted an annual error margin of 5% for all sentences passed. This translates to the incarceration of several thousand people in spite of their innocence and vice versa. For the latter case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes the most salient of underlying factors in determining the course of events.
On several occasions, the competence of the criminal defense attorneys has determined the direction taken by the cases. Similarly, a gross misinterpretation of the law and negligence by the judges also determines the way a case will be concluded. With this in mind, it can be said that most cases of wrongful convictions do not arise due to incompetence but are brought about by negligence. This occurs on two levels, with omissions in the written law and on the part of practitioners.
In one of the mentioned cases, Chae an appellant is denied part of his claims since the hearing judge overlooked judicial precedent, which was established by Heller v Martens. Some instances of double standards can be detected in the trial process, especially after courts revert to moral verdicts when allotting culpability (Boyd, 2007, p. 174). This is extremely unprofessional and should be avoided at all costs. Discrepancies, which ultimately result in wrongful convictions, come about due to failures while apportioning the respective blameworthiness of all parties involved.
When Chae sought the attention of the Alberta appellate judge in 2005, he was forced to forfeit certain claims he had made. He was injured in an accident that occurred as his friend drove them home from a social evening they had. During the journey, they had an accident and Chae sustained several injuries. Since he failed to fasten his seatbelt at the time of the accident, he was adjudged careless hence having to forego some claims he had made.
In the 2002 trial pitting Heller against Martens (which serves as judicial precedent to date), it was decided that the causation approach should be overlooked when apportioning liability. The court should instead focus on the comparative blameworthiness approach. This implies that the judge should have analyzed each negligent action in equal measure. It should be noted that she failed to do this, by focusing entirely on Chae’s faults while neglecting those committed by Min the driver. In as much as Chae’s failure to fasten a seat belt placed him on the wrong, Min over sped and drove under the influence of alcohol.
In accordance with the Acts governing contributory negligence established in the year 2000, a judge should establish the degree to which each of the parties involved deviated from the standard of care. Summarily, this was a wrongful conviction, since the comparative blameworthiness approach would have apportioned 75% negligence to Min and 25% to Chae.
On the matter of battered women, some instances of wrongful convictions arising from complete misinterpretation or bias have been cited. It is commonplace for male judges to show sympathy to the side they relate with if a case is presented before them. Most juries have also fallen into the same trap during their deliberations. In addition, Canadian courts admit psychiatric evidence, since they believe that it has scientific cannon (Tang, 2003, p. 619). It should be noted that battered women syndrome is not admissible as legal defense in Canada. The condition is viewed as the elucidation of a battered woman’s mental condition which is helpful to comprehending her present psychological state.
The similarity between these two cases is evident since provisions exist which ensure these cases are handled differently. In those instances where cases of women battery are treated differently, the proof presented offers the jury a platform to assess the motive of committing a tort, in case one is committed. In the event, a murder is committed, “section 34(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code allows the jury to interrogate the motive to establish if the reasons given are credible.
Section 34(2) of the criminal code provides for three elements of self-defense in case the victim departs this life” (Tang, 2003, p. 620). In the first instance, a case of unlawful assault will be sought. Alternatively, the jury may seek to determine the existence of realistic apprehension of a death risk or grievous bodily harm. Lastly, the jury will seek to establish a reasonable belief, that maintaining personal safety is only possible upon the demise of the adversary.
On the first aspect, an honest but reasonable mistake is permitted in case the woman is reliant upon self defense. This situation will only hold if expert evidence is adduced, to levels that will aid the jury’s quest to determine if the rationality of the woman’s perception is relevant to unlawful assault. This evidence can also be used by the jury, to establish the reasons as to why ladies living in violent and abusive relationships do not walk out on their spouses. This is crucial to dispelling the inaccurate public perception held by legal workers and the general populace. Summarily, the similarity in the two instances is brought about in the exceptions provided for by the law. Competent practitioners may exploit the goodwill of the law to the benefit of their guilty clients. On the reverse, such loopholes may be applied by the judicial system to condemn innocent defendants.
Among the differences, eye witness misinformation is the most glaring. It has also been reported as the highest contributor for wrongful conviction in a majority of torts, since it occurs at frequent intervals (Rattner, 1988, p. 289). In the long run, many people have been convicted falsely as a result of these allegations. Alliances have been formed with the intention of eliminating people perceived as enemies, with considerable success levels.
It is praiseworthy that several recommendations have been proposed, with the aim of addressing this issue. For instances where eyewitnesses provide sole evidence, experts have proposed that distinct pretrial sessions be organized, where all information as regards the facts will be presented to a jury or the presiding judge. The panel will establish the adequacy, reliability and validity of this identification before admission into the court room (Rattner, 1988, p. 292).
In addition, the circumstances under which vicarious liability is established vary considerably. For torts related to the battered woman’s syndrome, the existing rules create provisions for leniency towards the accused. This implies that circumstantial evidence may be admitted into the proceedings. For other torts, the plaintiff has to attest beyond logical misgivings before vicarious liability is apportioned.
Take the case of a student who was sexually assaulted by a member of staff at regular intervals for a couple of years. This ordeal commenced at age 7, and continued until she was 11. Initially, the judge ruled in favor of the student, citing the school culture which enhanced the risks of molestation. This was due to the separation of children from their families, and placing employee quarters next to the children’s quarters. Appellate judges overturned this decision, citing an overemphasis on opportunities created by the defendant’s job, and disregard for duties assigned to the employees. The court also failed to establish the connection between these duties and the wrongs committed by the defendant (Burgess, Roberts & Regehr, 2009, p. 65).
It should be noted that for this case, direct liability is charged on the offender, while vicarious liability is charged on the employing institution. If the approach of the trial judge is pursued, the school will bear liability for all misgivings of their staff members. This should not be the case. Merely providing an opportunity for one to commit a crime does not constitute sufficient grounds for liability. It was concluded that the school did not have anything to do with the tort, since the employee did not have to maintain contact with students. The court also established that he was not advancing his employers interests when he molested the girl.
Since intimacy was prohibited he was required to focus on his primary roles. Based on these findings, the court accurately ruled that there were insufficient grounds to charge vicarious liability for the employee’s torts, in spite of the employer providing him with the opportunity to commit the tort. This is so because his allocated duties did not meet grounds for vicarious liability. Adduced evidence showed appreciable discrepancies in what the school management urged their employee to do and his actual actions.
References
Boyd, N. (2007). Canadian Law, An introduction. 4th ed. Ontario: Nelson Education.
Burgess, A. W. Roberts, A. R. Regehr, C. (2009). Victimology: Theories and Applications. Ontario: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and the Criminal Justice System. Law and Human Behavior. Vol. 12, No. 3.
Tang, K. (2003). Battered Woman Syndrome Testimony in Canada: It’s Development and Lingering Issues. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 47, (6), 618-629.