Should the United States Establish a CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION?

By Schehr, Robert Carl; Weathered, Lynne | Judicature, November/December 2004 | Go to article overview

Should the United States Establish a CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION?


Schehr, Robert Carl, Weathered, Lynne, Judicature


The English experience suggests that due process reforms may be stifled, rather than promoted, by the establishment of a CCRC-style institution. Innocence commissions may be a more effective measure for correcting and preventing wrongful conviction in the United States.

In the United States over the the past 10 years, post-conviction investigation of cases of factual innocence and exposure of wrongful convictions have, in large part, been the province of innocence projects. Such projects have emerged in the United States, Australia, Canada, and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom to investigate claims of factual innocence and miscarriages of justice. The United States now claims innocence projects in 35 states, with 7 states possessing more than one.1

While innocence projects have effectively induced exonerations, and through post-mortem case review have exposed American due process to intense scrutiny, they are typically under-resourced, overwhelmed by demand, and relatively powerless to significantly influence statutory changes to due process. A compelling question, then, is: Does there exist an effective alternative to innocence projects-one that operates with the same investigatory vigor and efficacy, is better resourced, and possesses the necessary state-derived legitimacy to make it an effective force for due process change?

In 1995, the United Kingdom created the Criminal cases Review Commission (CCRC) to address miscarriages of justice. The model has spawned notable interest in theUnited States,2 Australia, Norway, New Zealand, and Canada. To inspire debate within the American legal community concerning the potential efficacy of creating such an institution in the United States, this article introduces readers to the CCRC, outlines some of the current criticisms, and considers possible implications to American due process.

A brief CCRC history

The CCRC was established by Parliament under the Criminal Appeal Act of 1995 following recommendations from the 1993 "Runciman Commission," a royal commission charged with investigating how effectively the English criminal justice system secured convictions of the guilty while ensuring acquittals of the innocent.3

By its own account, the CGRC is an independent body charged with the thorough, impartial, open, and accountable investigation of suspected miscarriages of justice in both convictions and sentencing in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.4 The depth of the commission's investigative powers enables it to actively investigate miscarriage-ofjustice claims before a decision is made on whether or not to refer the case to the appeal courts. The commission, which rarely accepts cases that have not previously been appealed, investigates matters where a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction has been alleged and is not restricted to innocence-based applications.5 In fact, "innocence" is not one of its concerns.6 As such, investigations that lead to non-referral of cases are considered successes since they confirm the validity of the original convictionand validate the CCRC's role of maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system.7

Before the CCRC was established, post-appeal applications in the U.K. were submitted to the Home secretary's Criminal cases Unit (CCU), where, in a similar manner to the provisions previously operating in Canada and currently operating in Australia, the executive body determined whether to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. Under the old system, few cases reached the Court of Appeal. This changed significantly with the establishment of the CCRC.

As of March 2003, the CCRC had received more than 5,500 applications. Of those completed, 196 (4 percent) were referred to the Court of Appeal on the basis of conviction and sentencing appeals. Of the conviction referrals, 77 (64 percent) were quashed, and 44 (36 percent) were upheld.8

Expanded appeal provisions in England allow the CCRC to refer claims of wrongful conviction to the Court of Appeal (or, in cases of a Magistrates' Court conviction, the Crown Court) when there is a real possibility of overturning the conviction because:9

* An argument was not raised in the court proceedings;

* Evidence was not presented to the court; or

* Other exceptional circumstances were present

Criticism of the CCRC

For critics of the administration of justice in Britain, the appearance of the CCRC signalled parliamentary acknowledgment of the failure of due process.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Should the United States Establish a CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.