Talk:List of miscarriage of justice cases

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Thanks to everyone who participated in the AFD discussion. I think this will be a better list because of it. There should be some explanation as to the criteria used at the header of the list. I propose something like this at the top: "This list includes cases where the accused was later found to be innocent of the underlying crime and has received either an official exoneration or a consensus exists that the individual was unjustly punished." It's not perfect but it might hit close to the mark. I welcome comments. Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriage of justice means that a convictions should not have occured. It does not mean that the person is innocent, or is "found innocent" by a court- or at least found guilty. David Bain, for instance, suffered a miscarriage of justice at his first trial, at which he was convicted. He was then found not guilty by a second jury. But even if he had been found guilty a second time, the first trial was still a miscarriage of justice. I suggest that the heading be amended to remove the reference to innocence.JohnC (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a miscarriage of justice if a person who committed a crime is found 'not guilty'. A list of such cases would be enlightening. HuPi (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria is unclear — at least from the perspective of the English legal system (and that includes the US and the Commonwealth). What is an "official exoneration"? Does it include a successful appeal? Appeals are generally based on questions of law in the original trial. They are not based on the question of innocence. The criteria also mentions a retrial. Retrials are rare.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entry (1679) here [1] that was edited today also made me query the criteria. In that case it seems suspect to assume innocence based on the opinions of others 350 years later, (which from a quick view only says the evidence was flawed, not that the accused was without doubt not guilty.) Some form of judicial or official recognition of a miscarriage does seem to be essential for inclusion here. The Camden Wonder above it might be an exception because the murder victims re-appeared and it set a precedent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solidifying criteria for inclusion[edit]

The list is getting lengthy, some of it is either unsourced, or additional/better sources are needed, and I think it might be time to firm up the inclusion criteria. I'm working on putting the entries in table form to make it easier on the reader (similar to what I did with List of wrongful convictions in the United States) and I think other changes might be warranted. I'm proposing that we require entries have a current wikipedia article (or the subject be covered in some related wikipedia article). There are thousands, if not millions, of wrongful convictions in the world. The article is teetering on being too lengthy and I think this will help keep the article up to par. A wikipedia article in another language is acceptable, (however, if you can, include at least one English source in this article). I wanted to get additional opinions before I make too many changes. Does anyone oppose changing the inclusion criteria? Bali88 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you might want to wait to see what others have to input here before unilaterally deleting entries? Just over 2 days isn't very long, and this is the first time I, for example, have noticed this. Keri (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can revert it until the discussion is finished. Do you have an opinion on the changes? Bali88 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Firstly, a table is a better option, I agree with that. But removing cases based only on the existence or not of a WP article is hasty: some may be notable enough in their own right to have an article which nobody has got around to writing yet. Redlinking on the list is a good start for those. You're right that some of the entries *may* be NN (I haven't had time to read them all yet!), so perhaps we could throw some cases in the hat here that we think don't stand up to notability criteria? Which ones catch your eye at this time? Keri (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure a lot of them 'are' notable, it's just that a lot of them were unsourced or gave very little detail as to what the conviction was about or why it's being listed here. I thought perhaps removing them would light a fire under people arses to get them to either source them or write the article. The one about choking on cereal sounded really interesting. Richard Doney has basically his own website and that's it. I tried to put in another source and I couldn't find one. Bali88 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I've written other guidelines that I think will work for the page that we can discuss as well:


Guidelines:
  • All entries need to be covered in wikipedia. This can include articles about the exoneree specifically, articles about the person in foreign language wikipedias, articles about the crime, or a section/mention of the case in another related article (for example, if the conviction was based on the testimony of a notable expert who has a wikipedia article and the case is detailed on that expert's page, that counts). If the person has a foreign language article, it would be helpful (although not required) to include at least one source in English.
  • If the person has not been formally exonerated, be sure to include at least one source documenting why they are being included. An article that discusses the work of a wrongful conviction group on their behalf, an article about public protests, etc.
  • In some cases, there is debate as to whether an entry should be included (such as Ryan Ferguson or West Memphis 3) because they have not formally been exonerated and there are still people who believe in their guilt. I lean toward inclusion, because readers will enjoy reading about those cases even if there is still doubt, but be sure to describe the scenario accurately in the "notes" section detailing that they have not been exonerated and describe the reason they being added.
  • The case should be settled before it is added. In other words, either they should be deceased, exonerated, or have worked out a plea with the government in some way. For instance, the West Memphis 3 case, even though a conviction stands, they accepted alford pleas in exchange for being released. That is acceptable. Mumia Abu-Jamal, despite considerable activism on his part, is still incarcerated on those charges and should not be included. If consensus exists after his death, he can be included at that point.
  • Entries should be placed under the country where the conviction took place. When I was going through, some people were under the person's nationality, others were under the place of conviction. For the sake of simplicity and uniformity, put them where they were convicted. For example: Amanda Knox goes under Italy, Linda Carty (who is British) goes under USA.
  • There should be a formal conviction. If a person was tried once and acquitted, that doesn't count as a miscarriage of justice. However, if there are significant cases of this happening, we can consider adding a section at the bottom for those cases.
  • The USA section will redirect to the article about US wrongful convictions. There are so many in the US that it dominated the article. If another country's section gets too long, create a new article and redirect it there. Bali88 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight, that seems solid enough except - as noted above - the existence of a WP entry and I'm in two minds about the exoneration criteria. Keri (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about the exoneration criteria? Bali88 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that if there has been no official exoneration, calling it a "miscarriage of justice" instantly makes it POV. Keri (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it creates somewhat of a NPOV dilemma, however, we would be limiting the entries severely if we required an official exoneration, so much that I think it would be tough to have a useful article. Many cases the prosecutor refuses to acknowledge their mistake, no matter how clear it is. West Memphis Three, for example, is a culturally significant case, but the prosecutor is still holding on to that one. Juan Rivera, who DNA cleared and who settled for a record $20 million with the department, still hasn't been officially exonerated. They're still trying to say he's actually guilty. In many cases, it's also very unclear whether there has been an official exoneration. Trying to parse that out when dealing with countries around the world who have different justice systems would be tough. The reason I set the bar there is because it's an area where there is bound to be some fuzziness and I think it would create a wikipedia article that is lower quality and has less information than we want. Bali88 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WM3 is a very good example: it is absolutely POV to label it a miscarriage of justice. I don't think that we as editors are able to decide and pronounce that the WM3 are innocent or guilty or that a miscarriage has taken place; certainly, no reversal of the decisions or quashing of the convictions has taken place. We simply report the facts of the case according to RS. It is one thing for us to report that RS call it a MoJ, but a completely different kettle of fish for us to decide it is. As for cases where it is unclear if there is an official exoneration, well, again, without one there is no MoJ, merely a claim of a MoJ. Keri (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where a conviction has been quashed or overturned - even though a retrial may then have been stayed - should be the minimum criteria, I'd suggest. Keri (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could be persuaded to alter the criteria so that *only* overturned or quashed convictions are allowed, however, do you really want to go through the time and energy to research all the entries and assure that they have been officially exonerated? It was a lot of time and energy to put the entries in tables, it will be even more work to thoroughly source the entries, input dates, locations and other details. I don't even want to *think* about going through all these entries and trying to ascertain whether their local government has made some sort of formal announcement that they are not guilty. We will cut this list in half if not more if we do that. I mean, if you're up for the task, I don't mind, but digging through foreign newspapers trying to ascertain something that is handled different in each country and often up for debate is a lot of work (by up for debate, I mean, it's often unclear whether it counts as an exoneration). It's not as big a deal for new entries where you can do one at a time, but sifting through the old article will be a beast and I think it creates a less accurate article because many culturally relevant cases will slip through the tracks. Also, it changes the scope of the article. For the time being, the criteria includes: "consensus exists that an individual was unjustly punished". Entries such as Atefah Sahaaleh will be deleted entirely. When I was writing this up, I was trying to word it so as to change the scope of the article as little as possible. I was already proposing deleting unsourced or non-notable entries. (And really it's not so much about deleting them, I just want authors to create the appropriate articles or adequately source them). I didn't want to make it a complete overhaul. So what are your thoughts? Do you want to change the scope of the article? Bali88 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(reset)Quite a can of worms. Atefeh Sahaaleh would merit inclusion because she received a pardon, albeit posthumously, for her wrongful conviction. The problem with individuals, such as WM3, who were not officially exonerated is that the claims of wrongful conviction are made by those with an agenda: namely the defendants and their defence teams. Take the case of Simon Hall, for example. For 10 years or so campaigners pursued this "miscarriage of justice" - described as the "flagship of the UK’s university innocence project movement" - and it received some very high-profile coverage, including a BBC documentary... And then he finally admitted that he did murder the victim. It will take some digging for references with some cases, agreed, but if there isn't significant coverage we have to question notability anyway. Keri (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Let's put the table up - like you said, lot of work went into getting to that point - and then take another look. I'll self-revert, so we can see what we're working with. Keri (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I set it as cases that are "settled" as opposed to cases that are ongoing (like Mumia), because lots of people proclaim their innocence. It would be a nightmare and very much POV. I think convictions being quashed or overturned is a good happy medium. If notable cases come forth that don't fit that criteria and people want to add them, we can revisit it or discuss them on a case by case basis. So, what do you want to do about entries? Should we require a wikipedia article? If there are other entries that are notable and editors want to add them, it might inspire them to create the article, even if it's just a stub. Bali88 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response; I'm getting bogged down reading the cases and also reading the scholarly literature on MoJ. You know that horrible moment of realisation, where you decide to strip one wall of wallpaper, then discover there are 4 layers underneath, and then you find the plaster is starting to crumble beneath that because the wall has rising damp... and a weekend of DIY becomes two weeks of getting the builders in? This page, and the associated Miscarriage of justice page, make me feel like that lol. To address your question, if the case is an exceptional example which appears to have received more than passing coverage then I don't think we should require an article but it will still be subject to challenge. A successful appeal against a conviction resulting in a quashed sentence or acquittal is, after all, not uncommon and demonstrates that the carriage of justice is working. Keri (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Sounds like a plan. Bali88 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I'm late to the party, but article length is subjective. The best way to shorten it would be, not to remove clear miscarriages of justice, but to include less detail about each case, or none at all. If there are already Wikipedia pages on some cases then those links can be followed for case details. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of miscarriage of justice cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Wood[edit]

I have removed Gordon Wood from the list. The details of the case can be found at Death of Caroline Byrne. He was not exonerated; he simply won at appeal. There is no consensus that he was innocent. Byrne's family continues to believe Wood killed her.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Truscott[edit]

The murder was not in Vancouver. It was in Ontario.....near Clinton. The base is in Vanastra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.18.157 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of miscarriage of justice cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Wallace and Stefan Kiszko[edit]

Should be included in UK list. Also, should the list be in alphabetical order?Crawiki (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kisko is listed; he is under 1975. Readers can make use of an alphabetical listing by clicking on the arrows at the top of the Defendants column. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabular Presentation[edit]

The purely tabular presentation is in my opinion really dreadful because the descriptions of the cases in the last column are often quite long. That makes them very difficult to read because they are so narrow, and it makes the rest of the table hard to use because the very large gaps between rows prevent one from seeing multiple rows at the same time. I suggest retaining the tabular presentation for summary information but removing the descriptions in the last column other than perhaps a very short summary, to separate full-width sections.Bill (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Miscarriage of Justice[edit]

If miscarriage of justice is a synonym for exoneration; What is the word that describes when the court errs and pre-punishes people prior to sentencing?; Grossly denying many civil liberties & maintaining a for profit institution with monopolies on phone and commissary products; Impacting fair trails, the Constitutional Right to Assemble In Peace (US CONST ART 1 SECTION 1) and Freedom of Speech in court and over the phone (Press 1 to accept call prevent information or message machines calls and are not made freely available). The detained are held for Ransom which has been renamed to Bail to obscure legality and simultaneously denied a way to work and earn minimum wage to pay of fines restitution taxes and bills. Later they are released to the streets homeless. All at the expense of tax payers circa 45-65K a year for prisons and up to 185K a year for state hospitals like colinga [1]

References

  1. ^ San Diego Union Tribune https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-predators-paradise-coalinga-mental-hospital-2010may16-htmlstory.html

Article[edit]

Injustice In Justice [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.scribd.com/document/370037578/Injustice-in-Justice-the-5000usd-Lawsuit-Lawyer-Wanted

" Dic Penderyn " - Richard Lewis 1807 -1831 - " In 2000 a legal case was started by Lewis's descendants to seek a pardon "[edit]

The criteria for this page are sophisticated and I have had arguments on Wikiedia before - even for contributing information to a Talk page like this : I do not know whether the case of Dic Penderyn who was hanged - despite the protests at the time - qualifies : the witness James Abbot later admitted to perjury and Ianto Parker confessed on his death bed that he was the guilty party - there is already a wikipedia page about Dic Penderyn to consider for this case -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dic_Penderyn

DaiSaw (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A court ruling on guilt or otherwise is not the benchmark here, which is quality reliable sources - see Fred West. Where are your sources? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what an abortion[edit]

I wrote and laid out the original article of this, years ago, and added a lot of the UK cases. This new layout, quite frankly is a fuckign abortion, Its dreadfully hard to read a column of text 1 one inch wide and 18 incles tall It requires HUGE amounts of tedious, anoying scrolling about to find anything ,and its staggeringly wasteful on space. My original layout, bullet pointed paragraphs, was FAR easier to read down. Who ever suggested putting it all in table form needs to be kept well away from any form of publishing or copy layout. I strongly suggest this dismal, dreadful layout is reverted back to its simpler, easier to read form. What an abortion this is. 2.59.114.197 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie McTavish[edit]

The preamble to the article suggests that it's a list of wrongful convictions. What it says about Jessie McTavish (U.K., 1974), shows that hers is a case of wrongful acquittal. This is confirmed by the Jessie McTavish article. I propose removing her from the list. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it appears to be a wrongful acquittal and not a wrongful conviction, but legally her case is a 'miscarriage of justice' due to her successful appeal, meaning her conviction was legally considered incorrect. Also a miscarriage of justice does not necessarily need to be a case where an innocent person is convicted, it could also refer to a case in which the judicial process was bungled. Frazerrex (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Socrates[edit]

This painting is depicted at the top of the article, without any explanatory text. Is it relevant in any way? Newburyjohn (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no-one has said it's relevant, so I deleted it.Newburyjohn (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

miscarriage cases vs miscarriages[edit]

I wonder how much the word cases in the title contributes. Would List of miscarriages of justice be less clear? —Tamfang (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases&oldid=1205039340"