Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations

Imagine you are tasked with conducting a new research study on the topic on Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations.  Discuss the design of your study by identifying the research method you would use, as well as the participants for your study and the procedures (i.e. what would you do during your study?).  This is the one originally used. Observational Research on Wrongful Convictions The observational research design used in the study is a pre-existing data model. The data I will collect will examine the leading causes of wrongful convictions and their consequences. I will collect data from the information presented online on Australian cases concerning wrong conviction and the consequences in the past ten years. The hypothesis of my study would be to determine the leading causes of wrongful conviction. I would define my variables of interest-based on the previous cases presented. I choose the research design since I believe it will give me accurate data on these cases’ patterns. The meta-analysis that has already been collected online provides a basis for the study. Also, the information presented online is comprehensive since it is collected across the state. The advantage of this model is that information is readily available. The internet provides a variety of cases on wrongful convictions and exonerations. Therefore, it makes it easier for me to access data on the topic of research. However, it may present bias information. Since the data present online already has the authors’ opinions, it may influence the research. The meta-analysis presented has already been analyzed; thus, I might make pre-determined conclusions based on them. Also, the analysis presented online may influence me such that I might collect data to fit into my pre-determined hypotheses. Since the readings might influence my thinking, I might conclude what I want the data to reflect instead of researching. The results of the study presented false evidence presented by the eyewitness. In many cases, wrong information by the eyewitness resulted in a 90% conviction of innocent individuals (Dioso-Villa et al., 2016). The main reason associated with the wrongful conviction is the witness’ influence on judges’ decision. Eyewitnesses influence the outcome of a court case as they affect the judges’ decision.  The study also highlighted that despite the presence of DNA exonerations, most victims end up in jail from wrongful convictions (Hessick, 2017). They are rarely exonerated as they are few appeal cases in the state (Dioso-Villa et al., 2016). Also, lack of finance affects the victims’ ability to appeal their cases (Hessick, 2017). They cannot afford to conduct a forensic study on the evidence; thus, they end up being convicted wrongly. I was surprised that falsified information is the main reason for the conviction of individuals. I always believed that tampered evidence in the crime scenes might be the leading cause as the victim’s DNA would be present in the background. I am surprised at how hard it is to get an appeal case in Australia. As a developed state, I believed that it would be easier to gain justice.  The research taught me that wrongful convictions are mainly based on falsified information presented by a witness. I learned that DNA exonerations are possible. However, victims can be limited by the limited possibility for appeal cases and inadequate capital to finance the DNA investigations. I did not notice any problems with the validity of the information presented as I used peer-reviewed articles.        References Dioso-Villa, R., Julian, R., Kebbell, M., Weathered, L., & Westera, N. (2016). Investigation to exoneration: A systemic review of wrongful conviction in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 157-172. Hessick, C. B. (2017). DNA Exonerations and the Elusive Promise of Criminal Justice Reform. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 15, 271.