Confidence in the criminal justice system is based on the assumption that the guilty will be held accountable for their crimes and that the innocent will not be convicted. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system wrongly convicts innocent citizens every year. Wrongful convictions (or miscarriages of justice – the two terms can be used interchangeably) are defined as legal convictions that falsely accuse innocent people of the crime in question (Denov and Campbell, 2005). Although actual cases of wrongful convictions are unknown, it is estimated that approximately 1% of all prisoners have been falsely accused, representing approximately 6,000 to 10,000 miscarriages of justice per year (Denov & Campbell, 2005). The justice system is made up of various legal groups and actors, making error possible at any stage of the legal process, or at the hands of any legal actor. Eyewitness error, police misconduct, or tampering with evidence are examples of factors that can lead to a wrongful conviction. The aim of this article is to analyze the ex post facto mechanisms that support a wrongful conviction once it has occurred. The Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG), the criteria for review under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code and the role of the Minister of Justice will be examined before assessing the current criticisms of these systems. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayIn 2002, enforcement under section 690 of the Criminal Code was reformed and replaced by section 696.1 (Ministry of Justice, 2012). The reform included, among other things, greater transparency of the process, defined criteria for the Minister of Justice to grant relief and eligibility criteria (Ministry of Justice, 2012). The Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG), a unit of the Department of Justice, is responsible for undertaking part of the review process. The findings are then forwarded to the Minister of Justice before a recommendation is made (Ministry of Justice, 2012). For the review process to take place, the wrongly convicted person must meet a number of conditions (Denov and Campbell, 2005). Applicants must have been guilty of a criminal offense or be classified as a dangerous offender or long-term offender. They must also have exhausted all levels of appeal before the form is available to them. Finally, the GRCC will only examine the candidate's file if there is new and significant information to present. This information may include newly acquired DNA evidence or material that was not presented to the courts during the sentencing process (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Compliance with these criteria will be determined during the first stage of the review process, during which a preliminary investigation will take place to determine eligibility. Following this stage, the reliability of all relevant information and evidence will be examined, which may involve interviewing witnesses, carrying out required forensic tests and consulting with associated police personnel. The results of the investigation are then condensed into a report, in which the requester is given the opportunity to review the investigation to date. Finally, the Minister of Justice receives legal advice to inform his decision (Denov and Campbell, 2005). It is important to note that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict (Denov and Campbell, 2005). The role of the minister is limited to formulatingrecommendations on possible remedies, such as a new trial or seeking the court's advice on how to proceed. Ostensibly, the application is a mechanism for restoring justice after a wrongful conviction. Persons who maintain their innocence after conviction may request a review under this section. Even if the intent was to provide those wrongly convicted with a means to seek justice, Section 696.1 does not fully accomplish that goal and may actually support a false belief. The CCRG has been criticized for its lack of independence and transparency (Scullion, 2004). As a unit of the Department of Justice, the CCRG is a statutorily appointed agency that investigates legal cases and agents (Roach, 2012). By conducting internal investigations, supervisory powers remain within the framework of the law. The lack of transparency reinforces the concentration of investigative powers, to the extent that the possibilities of external criticism are less. Given that the Canadian Review Panel is not independent, it is questionable whether the GRCC and the Minister of Justice are conducting objective investigations based on the evidence or whether they are influenced by the Court's decisions ( Saguil, 2007). This leads to negative implications for the candidate due to institutional conflict. The application is being reviewed by the same agency that led to the initial miscarriage of justice, casting doubt on the fairness of the review process. Of the existing commissions of inquiry in Canada, six have recommended the creation of an independent committee to examine wrongful convictions (Public Prosecution Service of Canada, 2011). Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the recommendations made by a commission of inquiry are taken into consideration (Denov and Campbell, 2005). Many advocates for the wrongly convicted have said Canada should adopt a review model similar to North Carolina's. The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission (NCIIC) is an independent review body composed of eight members, including lay members, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a victim advocate, among others (Roach, 2012). This diverse board prevents the review process from being dominated by legal officials and allows for equal representation and deliberations. Unlike the CCRG, the NCIIC can hold public hearings and publish trial transcripts, thereby increasing their transparency (Roach, 2012). Although the creation of the CCRG was intended to investigate cases of false convictions, its lack of independence and transparency could actually lead to a miscarriage of justice. Despite the replacement of section 690 with section 696.1, the current application form still creates certain difficulties for those wrongfully convicted. sentenced. The review criteria are rather narrow. First, wrongly convicted individuals must have exhausted all levels of the justice system before being granted access to the claim (Denov & Campbell, 2005). This criterion is difficult for candidates to satisfy because the appeal procedure requires a significant economic investment. Economically marginalized people tend to be overrepresented in miscarriages of justice because lack of financial resources is one of several risk factors that increase the likelihood of being falsely accused of a crime (Menard & Pollock, 2014). Not only are economically marginalized people targeted for wrongful convictions, but they also cannot afford adequate counsel to fight the false accusation. This was the case of Donald Marshall, Jr., where his attorney failed to provide adequate evidence, did not cross-examine witnesses, nor did he request thedisclosure of evidence (Royal Commission into the Prosecution of Donald Marshall, Jr., 1989). . There is therefore an inherent obstacle listed in section 696.1. The candidacy is designed to achieve justice for the wrongly convicted, but this group often lacks the economic resources to access it. A second examination requirement is that the candidate must provide new and significant information. This can either be new DNA evidence or evidence that has not previously been presented in court. This criterion poses two problems. First, DNA testing is an extremely expensive process and must be carried out at the expense of the accused (Denov and Campbell, 2005). As noted, economically marginalized people are often targets of wrongful convictions (Menard and Pollock, 2014). Therefore, wrongly convicted people may not have the means to produce DNA evidence, if it is available. Second, although there have been 250 exonerations through the use of DNA evidence, not all cases collect of biological samples (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Unlike murder and rape, robbery or drug crimes generally do not require the collection of DNA evidence (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Of the 250 exonerations through 2011, there were 69 murder cases, 48 ​​sexual assault convictions, and 139 rape cases (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Cases of drug offenses or robbery are absent from these statistics. Therefore, the requirement for biological proof limits the scope of the exemption. It becomes difficult for people falsely convicted of crimes without DNA evidence to have their cases re-examined. The intent of Section 696.1 was to allow wrongfully convicted individuals to challenge their convictions after exhausting the appeals process. Despite the modification of this article of the Criminal Code, this criterion prevents those who lack economic resources from accessing the request. Even with the necessary finances, the requirement for new and significant information, which is typically DNA evidence, limits the scope of the exemption to those convicted of serious criminal acts. People convicted of crimes for which DNA evidence is missing rarely have access to exoneration through application. In practice, the review criteria set out in section 696.1 may actually prevent wrongly convicted people from seeking justice. Applicants who meet the criteria for review face an arduous path to exemption. The process has been criticized for the length of the review. David Milgaard, for example, was only selected three years after submitting his application (Campbell, 2008). Delays in the review may be attributed to understaffing within the review board and the stages of the investigation, which may involve interviewing witnesses and consulting with police personnel. The CCRG is limited to six lawyers, which is insufficient to meet the number of requests submitted each year (Campbell, 2008). In a recent analysis of section 696.1, Roach (2012) revealed that between April 2007 and March 2011, the Minister of Justice considered only 88 applications under this section, while the number of applications was much higher. To analyze this in more detail, between April 2003 and March 2004, 29 applications were submitted for consideration. The minister conducted 11 investigations and issued only six decisions, all of which were rejected. From April 2005 to March 2006, the Minister of Justice received 39 requests. During this period, only two investigations were completed and the Minister reached only one decision that year, in which the case was referred to the Court of Appeal (Campbell, 2008). Obviously, the number of casesreceived each year exceeds the number of cases investigated. Although files may be accepted for review, it is not guaranteed that the investigation will result in an exoneration or referral to the Court of Appeal, as was the case for applications examined between April 2003 and March 2004 Many corrective measures proposed by the Minister of Justice involve referring cases to the courts of first instance or appeal. Between April 2002 and March 2006, the Minister of Justice completed 22 investigations, but only issued 13 decisions. Of these 13 decisions, more than half resulted in a referral to the Court of Appeal or the ordering of a new trial (Campbell, 2008). As mentioned previously, the CCRG has been criticized for its lack of independence, given that one government agency reviews the decisions of another government agency (Scullion, 2004; Saguil, 2007). Not only is the CCRCG itself criticized, but the solutions proposed by the Minister of Justice reinforce a concentration of powers. Biases are rooted in a self-regulating system, and reliance on the adversarial system to correct errors perpetuated by legal actors limits the scope of available remedies (Campbell, 2008). This presents some difficulties for those wrongly convicted, as they are forced to seek recourse from the system that caused the miscarriage of justice in the first place. Although the CCRG and section 696.1 of the Criminal Code have been criticized for weaknesses such as transparency, independence and cost, attempts have been made to confront these issues (Scullion, 2004). To address the issue of transparency, the applicant can review the investigation during the third stage of the process (Denov and Campbell, 2005; Scullion, 2004). This allows the candidate to have access to the collected documentation and to provide their contribution to the Minister of Justice. Additionally, section 690 was amended and replaced by section 696.1, which implied a greater degree of transparency. This is not to say that the review process is completely transparent in its current form, but that efforts have been made to increase public accessibility. In terms of independence, the CCRG and the Minister of Justice have been criticized for a conflict of interest, given that one government agency investigates the decisions of another (Scullion, 2004). Critics suggest that decisions made by the justice minister cannot be impartial given the strong influence of other legal services and actors. However, we must not neglect the fact that the judicial system and the actors within it seek to obtain justice. Although the current format of the review process is not ideal and an independent review panel is preferable, the Minister of Justice and members of the GRCC are still aware of the legal importance placed on preventing wrongful convictions (Scullion, 2004). Finally, many argue that the review process is expensive. It is important to interpret this criticism correctly. The application process itself is not costly, as all required documents have been obtained during the initial appeal process (Scullion, 2004). The cost associated with the review process depends on obtaining DNA evidence, if it becomes available after trial, and retaining an attorney (Denov & Campbell, 2005; Scullion, 2004). Ultimately, efforts were made to address these criticisms in order to improve the effectiveness of section 696.1. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In conclusion, I have attempted to demonstrate the.