The academic book review “The Innocence Commision: Preventing Wrongful Convictions and Restoring the Criminal Justice System” by Locke E. Bowman summarizes and analyzes the book of the same title by Jon B. Gould. This article addresses the issue of wrongful convictions and explains how it can be used as a tool for reformers to drive change that is otherwise difficult to create in a majorly change-resistant justice system. This is because with the advances in DNA testing that spurred a wave of exonerations of hundreds of wrongfully convicted inmates beginning in 1989, the issue became magnified and is percolating. This article was written in 2008 so while much of the information is slightly outdated and additional research is needed to confirm facts and see what other reforms have been solidified since the writing, the concepts still remain relevant and I feel that Bowman does an excellent job at seeing the issue through a reasonable lens. By a reasonable lens I mean that Bowman does not turn a blind eye to the obvious difficulty in passing reforms and the consistent resistance to change among conservative members of the justice system. He seeks to find reforms that will not necessarily tip the scale between the effectiveness of the system to convict the guilty while preventing wrongful convictions that I discussed in prior research and that is a major concern for many who are opposed to systemic reform.
​
The wave of DNA testing has unveiled a series of exonerations that were able to be studied to find patterns and similar issues among cases that can be used to make conclusions about flaws in the justice system, thus allowing these wrongful convictions in the first place. Bowman highlights 9 major factors that lead to wrongful convictions: mistaken eyewitness identifications, suggestive eyewitness identification procedures, "tunnel vision" on the part of police and prosecutors, "antiquated" forensic science, inadequate defense counsel, failure by police and prosecutors to disclose exculpatory material, police interrogations of mentally challenged suspects, "inconsistent statements" made by wrongfully accused defendants, and the unavailability of adequate post-conviction remedies. These factors were also almost all addressed in the University of Colorado Law School study I previously researched and also were clearly highlighted by the 218 exonerated cases up until 2008 where these factors played major roles in the guilty convictions. These consistencies and patterns from case to case are somewhat positive for reformers and researchers as they show clear paths for areas that can be addressed.
​
With clear issues with the justice system identified, it is now the role of organizations and reformers to look to find policy that can be changed with reasonable success. There are two sides to this task. Firstly, the reform must be proven to be beneficial to the goal of proving more factual guilt and reducing the rate of wrongful convictions as they are likely to be somewhat burdening to law enforcement and prosecution. Secondly, and arguably more difficult, is creating policy that is likely to be approved by policymakers. The requisite to this task is not attacking the justice system. It should be noted that while I have spoken about possible flaws and shortcomings of the justice system, they should not be addressed as such when attempting to find common ground with policymakers on passing reforms. The system should be addressed as a way to strengthen the system, in the same way software needs updates or machines continue to be innovated, not as a way to “fix” a broken system. Additionally, it is important to consider the effects these reforms will have on the prosecutorial and political side. If reforms hinder the ability of prosecutors to effectively convict the factually guilty perpetrators in this country and a significant number are allowed to run free, then there is no benefit to that side with the reform. However, if reform can be proven to be mutually beneficial, as a way to more successfully convict the correct guilty parties while reducing the rate of wrongful conviction, it is more likely to be looked at and taken seriously. A stronger justice system is better for everyone butt he definition of “strong” in this case may be different between people in correspondence with their place on the Paleyite/Romillist spectrum.
​
Bowman highlights the work of many groups around the nation that seek to find reform and prevent wrongful convictions. The work of these groups is pertinent to me as ways to either borrow policy to be more widely spread or to see connections between wrongful convictions as this is a major part of their research. With the growth and findings of other organizations such as the Innocence Project, work is being done to address wrongful convictions and seek reform. Additionally, simultaneous with the work towards pushing for reform, it is important for DNA based exonerations to be fought for as promptly and effectively as possible. This is because the window for DNA exonerations for the many innocent people still likely serving time in jail is not everlasting and time is dwindling for many. Some objects from old cases can no longer be tested and so therefore, the more time that elapses from a person’s conviction the less and less likely DNA testing is going to produce conclusive evidence for the release of an inmate.
​
Bowman highlights many reforms that have been passed in different places around the nation but I feel that it is best to focus on the 7 recommendations that came directly from Gould and his reform group, “The Innocence Commission for Virginia.” Firstly, he addressed the issue with eyewitness misidentification by proposing a series of minor changes including multiple person lineups, introducing the idea that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, and video recording of the procedures. The idea of video recording stemmed across many reform ideas as this can make it easier for trial and procedure to be reviewed and audited for mishaps. These things are also respectable and reasonable reform ideas as they do not inhibit the process of finding a true perpetrator; they simply help to resolve an issue that leads to wrongful convictions. He includes custodial changes to the interrogation process that include the recording of the process and different approaches taken to the mentally ill. Addressing Virginia’s policy of a 21 day limit to find new evidence after the conviction, the time limit is removed and adequate evidence can be reviewed without a strict limit on when it is discovered. “Open-file” discovery for the defense. This allows for a more open and unquestionable system of investigation that not only helps to reduce the likelihood of mishap but also solidifies the job done by prosecutors and law enforcement making it arguably mutually beneficial to an extent. It also takes forensic evidence and puts it to the Daubert system. This is something I need to do additional research into but from a basic understanding, the Daubert standard is a rubric for judging the validity and reliability of evidence based on peer reviewed nature, whether evidence has been tested, and the rate of error that is to be expected. This is a concept that should be applied to all forms of evidence in my opinion. Lastly, Gould addresses the issue of poor public defense that stems from underpaid public defenders by raising money and increasing the salaries of these attorneys. This can hopefully increase the usefulness and effectiveness of these lawyers and help reduce the role socioeconomic status has in convictions.
​
This paper can be exceptionally helpful for my research and my original work. I am planning on creating a database that can hold information about wrongful convictions and one of the sections I plan to have is based on what can be done to address the issue. These reforms are important to be included. It also brings up points about how to pass reform and what has and hasn’t been tried already so that I can focus future research into these areas. With previous research having been done that established the need for reform and the factors that lead to wrongful convictions, this is the first assessment and paper that I read that comprehensively goes into specific reforms as well as their results. This is all crucial to my studies.