Assessing Compensation Statutes for the Wrongly Convicted

Abstract

As the discovery of wrongful convictions grows, so does concern in the legal community and public sphere about actual innocence. Though research on miscarriages of justice has grown tremendously, most has focused on the factors contributing to wrongful convictions, with relatively little attention paid to the post-release struggles of exonerees. Specifically, social scientists have not yet examined policies designed to assist the exonerated in their return to society. This study provides a content analysis of existing compensation statutes for the wrongly convicted. Results show that just more than half of American states have compensation statutes for exonerees, and the assistance offered varies tremendously from state to state. Assessing current statutes in comparison to a model standard indicates that whereas some jurisdictions provide fairly comprehensive packages, others offer little in the way of reentry assistance. The importance of such statutes and implications for the wrongly convicted are discussed.Robert J. Norris (2012) "Assessing Compensation Statutes For The Wrongly Convicted"

Legislative responses to wrongful conviction: Do partisan principals and advocacy efforts influence state-level criminal justice policy?

“…This aligns with findings that the wrongfully convicted are often unable to collect compensation for various reasons (Norris, 2012). Regardless of the interpretation, this study only analyzed one type of law related to wrongful convictions, and one that intends to ameliorate rather than prevent them.…”

“…Second, and more importantly, we acknowledge that the content of the statutes we study here vary substantially from state to state. For example, Norris (2012) analyzes the differences in state compensation laws and finds many similar themes but also important variation while Norris et al's (2011) content analysis of other relevant statues including eyewitness reforms shows similar discrepancies across states. While it is clear that some types of legislation may be more or less effective at reducing errors in the criminal justice system, all will likely make some improvements and all represent attempts by particular states to address the issue.…”

“…The prior studies that investigated state differences in this legislation (Norris et al, 2011;Norris, 2012) did not test whether Innocence organizations affect variation across place, but political science logic and theory suggest that interest groups should matter. Though we recognize that other relevant interest groups exist, we focused on the Innocence Network, which is the most organized source of legal protections for the wrongfully convicted in the United States.…”

Compensating the Innocent: Perceptions of Exonerees’ Deservingness to Receive Financial Compensation for Wrongful Convictions

“…Exonerees without prior convictions were perceived as more deserving to receive financial compensation than those who had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor or felony drug offense. This is especially relevant in light of statutes that disqualify exonerees from receiving compensation based on prior convictions (Norris, 2012). It also suggests that, although prior conviction history accounted for a relatively small proportion of the variance in deservingness ratings, it may be an important variable for future investigation.…”

“…To this point, there has been little research on public attitudes toward compensation policies and reintegration services for the wrongfully convicted (Clow et al, 2012;Norris, 2012). This study may be among the first to investigate factors contributing to perceptions of deservingness for financial compensation.…”