Understanding Public Views of Wrongful Conviction Frequency and Government Responsibility for Compensation: Results From a National Sample

• Author: Jordan Nowotny,Amy Shlosberg,Thomas McAndrew
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221106747
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221106747

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(2) 140 –160

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034221106747

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Understanding Public Views

of Wrongful Conviction

Frequency and Government

Responsibility for

Compensation: Results From

a National Sample

Jordan Nowotny1, Amy Shlosberg1,

and Thomas McAndrew2

Abstract

Wrongful convictions are an indicator of the flaws of the American justice system

and represent the consequences of disproportionate crime control policies. To date,

few scholars have documented how the public views wrongful conviction frequency

or who is responsible for these miscarriages of justice. In this study, we draw on

a national sample to examine public perceptions of the prevalence of wrongful

convictions and the degree to which the public believes the government is responsible

for compensation after a wrongful conviction. Our results demonstrate that most

Americans believe felony wrongful convictions happen at least occasionally and that

the government should provide compensation to exonerees. These findings are not

consistent across groups. Race, political affiliation, gender, and age are significantly

related to differences in views of wrongful conviction frequency. Likewise, age and

political affiliation are significantly related to differences in support of government

compensation. Limitations and future directions are also discussed.

Keywords

wrongful conviction, public attitudes, crime policy, miscarriages of justice,

compensation

1Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, USA

2Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jordan Nowotny, Criminology and Criminal Justice Department, Fairleigh Dickinson University College

at Florham, 285 Madison Avenue, M-MS3-02, Madison, NJ 07940, USA.

Email: nowotny@fdu.edu

1106747CJPXXX10.1177/08874034221106747Criminal Justice Policy ReviewNowotny et al.

research-article2022

Nowotny et al. 141

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world with

more than 2.1 million people detained in prisons or jails. When including other forms

of community supervision, this number approaches 7 million (Maruschak & Minton,

2020). As of April 2022, the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE), the largest

database of exonerated cases has recorded 3,049 exonerations since 1989. However,

the actual number of wrongfully convicted people is most certainly higher. Scholarly

estimates of the prevalence of wrongful conviction typically range from 0.5% to 5%

(e.g., Gould & Leo, 2010; Gross et al., 2014; Gross & O’Brien, 2008; Huff et al., 1986;

Ramsey & Frank, 2007; Risinger, 2007; Zalman et al., 2008, 2012).

In addition to the unknown incidence of wrongful convictions and exonerations,

the actual definitions are debated in the literature. In this paper, we adopt the definition

used by the NRE, which states that

a person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and, following a post-

conviction re-examination of the evidence in the case, was either: (1) declared to be

factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that

declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a

government official or body with the authority to take that action. (https://www.law.

umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx)

Social science research similarly classifies a wrongful conviction as occurring

when an individual is found guilty of a crime but later exonerated due to new evidence

of innocence that is found and a person is either pardoned or a court sets aside the

conviction (Redlich et al., 2014). However, critics argue that although a person may be

“wrongfully convicted” that does not equate to “actual innocence,” particularly in

cases that lack DNA evidence. The argument here rests on the notion that some indi-

viduals may have had charges dropped due to procedural errors, thus making them

legally innocent but not necessarily truly innocent.

Altogether, the rate of wrongful conviction is important not only because innocent

people are punished for crimes they did not commit but also because these cases erode

public confidence in the criminal justice system and reduce trust in the rule of law

(Gould & Leo, 2010). As stated by Zalman et al. (2012, p. 51) “no problem challenges

the legitimacy of the criminal justice system more than the conviction of factually

innocent individuals.”

The public directly and indirectly influences the administration of justice; citizens

report crimes, provide evidence to the police, serve as jury members or witnesses, and

assist with maintaining social order. Public opinion is also critical in democracies

where citizens vote for and elect officials who represent their interests and enact vari-

ous policies and practices (e.g., Boswell & Smith, 2017; Burstein, 2003; Korzi, 2000;

Sharp, 1999). If the public believes wrongful convictions are common, they may doubt

the effectiveness and integrity of the system, which in turn, may undermine the pro-

cess of criminal justice (Ramsey & Frank, 2007). Community members who are not

confident in, or who mistrust, the justice system are less likely to obey the law (Tyler,

2006), cooperate with law enforcement or other criminal justice officials (Tyler, 2005),