When the Innocent are Incarcerated
What could be worse than being convicted of a terrible crime, of which you XXX not XXXXXX, XXX being XXXXXX in XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX criminals? XXXXXXXXXXXXX, this happens more XXXXXXXXXX than XXX XXXXX like XX imagine. XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX forensics and XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, a national XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXX organization dedicated to exonerating XXXXXXXXXX convicted XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX of XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXX, 2017). XX a XXXXXX XX fact, according XX the Innocence Project, as of XXXX 31, XXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXXXX have been XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX of XXX analysis and an XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX perpetrators XXXX been XXXXXXXXXX (XXX Innocence Project, n.d.). XXX XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, is not always XXXXXXXXXX or accurate.
Inconsistencies were found XXXXXX a study XXXX XXXXX-XXXXXXXXXX 157 cases XXXX were XXXXXXX XX “XX-XXXXXXXXX” by The XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX against the same 157 XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX’s (XXX’s) XXXXXXX. Because both organizations classify forensic science factors XXXXXXXXXXX, reconciling the data proves to XX challenging. Included in XXX study is a discrepant case XXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXX XXXX different XXXXXXXX. XXX nominal variables include the XXXXXXXXXX's name, XXX XXXXX XXXX reside in, the Innocence Project XXXXXXXXX XXX the contributing factors XXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX Registry of XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. In XXX 24 cases, contributing XXXXXXX are XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX (LaPorte, 2017).
XX XXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXX XXXX the power XX XXX XX a XXXXXXX XXXXXX of XXXX-turning cases in XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX innocent, XXXXXXX, a XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in the study XX such XXX XXXXXX be in XXXXXXXXXXX in order XX avoid discrepancies. XXX example, “accreditation, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX enforcement of a XXXX of ethics, and appropriate XXXXXXXX should mitigate forensic misconduct. Secondly, XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX must XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX in their reports and testimony XXXXXXX XXXX will mislead XXXXXXXXXXXXX, litigators, XXX XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX scientists XXXX XXXXXX impartial XXX objective XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX on XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX techniques. XX XXXXXXXX, errors XXX and do happen XXXXX, therefore it XX critical to XXXXX XX the underlying XXXXXXXX XXXX contributed XX XXX event and XXXX XX XXXXX XXXX the XXXXX” (LaPorte, 2017).
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX, I XXXX that I had a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX the terminology than XXXX I read my initial article XXX this XXXXX. XXXXXXX of XXXX, I XXXXX XXX article XXXXXX to XXXX and XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX and shared XXXX more XXXXX XXX gave XX the XXXXXXXXXXX needed to XXXX to a more XXXXXXXX conclusion. In addition, I found XXXX XXXXXXXX justice XXXXXXXXXX XXX an integral part XX a XXXXXX XXXX is needed XXX the success XX the XXXXXX development in XXX country.
XXXXXXXXXX
The XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX (n.d.) XXXX XX XXX an XXX XX XXXXXXXX convictions! Retrieved December XX, 2017, XXXX XXXXX://XXX.innocenceproject.org/
LaPorte, X. (XXXX). XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXX Exonerations: XXXXXXXXXXXXX the Role of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. (XXX). Retrieved December 5, XXXX, XXXX https://www.nij.gov/journals/279/Pages/XXXXXXXX-convictions-and-XXX-exonerations.aspx#XXXXX.