Although their analysis does not include data after 2004, the researchers note that they doubt that the use of DNA identification technology would have much impact on
false conviction rates — because DNA evidence is primarily used in cases such as rape rather than homicide.
Simon, a professor of law and psychology at the University of Southern California, says that
the false conviction rate, based on exoneration data from capital murder cases, is estimated to be near 5 percent, although that figure represents only a fraction of those wrongly imprisoned.
Not exact matches
«There are no other reliable estimates of the
rate of
false conviction in any context,» the researchers wrote in the study, published online on April 28 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers also note that a 4.1 percent
rate of
false conviction is conservative, given that separate calculations gauging the accuracy of the assumptions that took an even more conservative stance — assuming that people who were executed had zero chance of
false conviction and that the chances of exoneration after retrial would be twice that of people on death row — would still produce a larger figure than their 4.1 percent estimate.
The approach allows researchers to «actually come up with a valid estimate of the
rate of
false convictions — knowing something that people say [in criminal justice] is not knowable,» says study author Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and editor of the National Registry of Exonerations, a U.S. - focused exoneration database.
The predictable result is that the
rate of
false convictions has increased, as well as the
rate of failed prosecutions.
The government's avowed determination to eradicate myths about supposedly true victim behaviour, in spite of there being no UK research evidence of a negative impact by such myths on the
conviction rate, makes a stark contrast with their apparent insouciance about the potentially negative impact on the
conviction rate as a cumulative result of potential jurors reading lurid media accounts of the exposure of
false rape claims.
Focusing on the relatively simple matter of guilt or innocence; that is simple when compared with sentencing or damages, it is estimated that the error
rate for
false conviction is about 6 %.