My third interview as a part of the ISM program was with Professor John L. Worrall, Director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at the University of Texas at Dallas.  Mr. Worrall has a wealth of experience and knowledge in the field of criminology and criminal justice and has taught courses in a variety of different areas in the field.  Professor Worrall is also a prominent researcher and has been a part of a multitude of academic journals and research projects.  His primary focus is on crime control policy, and different areas of policing including bias and use of force.  Professor Worrall is also the chief editor of the Police Quarterly paper that studies and explores different areas of policing and is a published author of many books with his most successful book being called Crime Control in America: What Works.  While Professor Worrall revealed up front that he did not have a large knowledge of wrongful convictions as a topic, he still made time to speak with me which I saw as an opportunity to speak to someone with a wider understanding of different concepts in the study of crime and also in criminal justice.  

 

Originally, I assumed a lot of our conversation would look at the police role in wrongful convictions as this was his major area of expertise within criminal justice and criminology.  However, his initial assessment from his work and research showed that police did not play as large of a role in wrongful convictions as other factors such as witness misidentification and witness perjury.  Additionally, he highlighted the fact that policing is a very strict and outlined profession with less room for judgment and discretion than is seen in prosecution or obviously from a simple witness.  For me this also meant that it was an area where correction was less strenuous or complicated than for those other areas.  Any routes where police have a possibility of playing an unnecessary role that leads to a wrongful conviction should be adjusted and likely can be adjusted with a procedural change in policing.  Some specific areas that we discussed that lead to wrongful convictions, both of which may include policing as a factor, were in lineups and in interrogation.  Both of these have also come up in my prior research and in my prior interviews.  With lineups, where witnesses are supposed to be able to pick out or confirm a suspect from a group of people, there is concern over misidentification, which is very easy for a witness to do if they have picture in their mind that may not be completely accurate or for a variety of other factors, and also over possible police nudging of who the witness should select.  The first concern can be eliminated with a new structure of lineups where instead of having the entire group of suspects come out at once, which leads to the witness often choosing the suspect that most closely fits their preset description even if it is not in fact that person, the lineup would consist of individual people where the witness would either have to immediately say yes or no.  Secondly there is the practice of double blind lineups where neither the witness nor the officer running the lineup know who the primary suspect is leading to as little preset bias or misjudgment as possible.

 

Additionally, Professor Worrall did research on the California Three Strikes Law in an academic study published in 2004.  While this was a long time ago, this was something I wanted to discuss because it is a law that I am familiar with and one that has led to unfortunate exasperation of wrongful convictions.  This was seen in the case of Daniel Larsen who was wrongfully convicted of carrying a knife illegally.  Because this was his third offense Mr. Larsen received a life sentence of 25 years, the minimum under the Three Strikes Law, and would serve 13 years of that before finally being released.  Laws like these are meant to be exceptionally deterrent for criminals and an effort to reduce repeat offenders.  However, they carry major risks as seen in the case of Mr. Larsen.  Professor Worrall highlighted that they found this law to be less deterrent than it was meant to be and more harmful than not.  Because of findings like these, California would modify this law so that the third strike also had to be a serious crime for it to receive the more extreme punishment.  While no longer majorly pertinent as the law has since been changed, this still highlights ways in which legislature can lead to harsher punishments and negative consequences in terms of wrongful convictions and also shows how these laws can be fought against and changed.  This is reflective of the reform that is needed towards wrongful convictions.

 

Because of his role in the teaching and professing field, I asked Professor Worrall how much of an emphasis wrongful convictions receive in schooling.  He said that in criminal law and certain classes leading towards careers in prosecution or defense law this is touched on and taught.  However, he said that even in his field of criminology, the study of crime and the handling of crime and criminals, and criminal justice, the field that needs to be reformed in order for the rate of wrongful convictions to be reduced, it is not something that is emphasized in the classroom.  As to Mrs. Vasquez’s point in our interview reflects the additional need for awareness on the issue as it is not being emphasized on the level it needs to be for change to be driven.  However, Professor Worrall did highlight that because of the relatively recent light that has been shone on the issue as a result of DNA exonerations proving many innocent, it is becoming more discussed and a bigger part of at least the legal world.  This is encouraging and it will be interesting to see how this pattern progresses in the future.  I want to thank Professor Worrall for taking the time to speak to me.  Even though this was not his area of focus, he was still a helpful resource and another person who provided insight on my work from an academic perspective.