Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Framing innocents: the wrongly convicted as victims of state harm

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We adapt the victimology of ‘state harms’ framework outlined by Kauzlarich et al. (Critical Criminology, 10(3), 173–194, 2001) to understand the post-exoneration experiences of 18 death row exonerees. Kauzlarich et al. develop six points of commonality shared by most victims of state crime. Application of this framework to death row exonerees highlights the role the state plays in creating and exacerbating the harms they suffer. This analysis also lays a foundation for further theoretical inquiry into the wrongful conviction of the innocent as a form of state crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Available on line at: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

  2. Brady v. Maryland (1963) prohibits police and prosecutors from pursuing a prosecution while withholding evidence favorable to the defendant. Violations of this principle are known as Brady violations. Giglio v. US (1972) stipulates that prosecutors have an obligation to disclose evidence impacting on the reliability and credibility of prosecution witnesses and to find and disclose any exculpatory evidence in the hands of police.

References

  1. Castelle, G. (1999). Lessons learned from the ‘Fred Zain affair’. The Champion, 23, 12–16, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chambliss, W. (1989). State organized crime. Criminology, 27(2), 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook, K. (1998). Divided passions: Public opinions on abortion and the death penalty. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher, S. (1993). “Just the facts, ma’am”: lying and the omission of exculpatory evidence in police reports. New England Law Review, 28, 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fishman, M. (1978). Crime waves as ideology. Social Problems, 25(4), 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study of social theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gershman, B. (1986). Why prosecutors misbehave. Criminal Law Bulletin, 22(2), 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Givelber, D. (2002). The adversary system and historical accuracy: Can we do better? In S. Westervelt & J. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice (pp. 253–268). Newark: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Green, B., & Ward, T. (2000). State crime, human rights: the limits of criminology. Social Justice, 27(1), 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Green, P. (2005). Disaster by design: corruption, construction and catastrophe. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 528–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson, R. (1998). Death work: A study of the modern execution process. Belmont: West/Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Junkin, T. (2004). Bloodsworth. Chapel Hill: Algonquin.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kauzlarich, D., Matthews, R., & Miller, W. (2001). Toward a victimology of state crime. Critical Criminology, 10(3), 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kauzlarich, D., Mullins, C., & Matthews, R. (2003). A complicity continuum of state crime. Contemporary Justice Review, 6(3), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kramer, R., & Michalowski, R. (2005). War, aggression and state crime. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 446–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lenning, E. (2007). Execution for body parts: a case of state crime. Comtemporary Justice Review, 10(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leo, R. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leo, R. (2007). Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: developing a criminology of wrongful conviction. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(3), 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lofquist, W. (2002). Whodunit? An examination of the production of wrongful convictions. In S. Westervelt & J. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice (pp. 174–196). Newark: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Luscombe, B. (2001). When the evidence lies. Time, 13 May. Online.

  21. Martin, D. (2002). The police role in wrongful convictions: An international comparative study. In S. Westervelt & J. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice (pp. 77–95). Newark: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Matthews, R., & Kauzlarich, D. (2007). State crime and state harms: a tale of two definitional frameworks. Crime, Law & Social Change, 48(1–2), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Michalowski, R. (1985). Order, law, and crime. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Neff, J. (2004). NC bar hearing provokes more anger. The News and Observer, 21 October.

  25. Paternoster, R., Braeme, R., & Bacon, S. (2008). The death penalty: America’s experience with capital punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Protess, D., & Warden, R. (1998). A promise of justice. New York: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Radelet, M., Bedau, H., & Putnam, C. (1992). In spite of innocence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosen, R. (1987). Disciplinary sanctions against prosecutors for Brady violations: Paper tiger. North Carolina Law Review, 65, 693–744.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rothe, D., & Friedrichs, D. (2006). The state of the criminology of crimes of the state. Social Justice, 33(1), 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Surette, R. (1992). Media, crime & criminal justice. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Walker, S. (1999). The police in America. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ward, T. (2005). State crime in the heart of darkness. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 434–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weinberg, S., Gordon, N., & Williams, B. (2006). Harmful error: Investigating America’s local prosecutors. Washington, DC: Center for Public Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Westervelt, S., & Cook, K. (2007). Feminist research methods in theory and action: Learning from death row exonerees. In S. Miller (Ed.), Criminal justice research and practice: Diverse voices from the field (pp. 21–38). Boston: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Westervelt, S., & Cook, K. (2008). Coping with innocence after death row. Contexts, 7(4), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Westervelt, S., & Humphrey, J. (2002). Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice. Newark: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Westley, W. (1970). Violence and the police. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  40. White, R. (2008). Depleted uranium, state crime and the politics of knowing. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Woolford, A., & Wolejszo, S. (2006). Collecting on moral debts: reparations for the holocaust and porajmos. Law & Society Review, 40(4), 871–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zimmerman, C. (2002). From the jailhouse to the courthouse: The role of informants in wrongful convictions. In S. Westervelt & J. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice (pp. 55–76). Newark: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following for their contributions to the completion of this manuscript: Ray Michalowski, who helped focus our ideas on the primary story we had to tell; Amy Ernstes, who gathered research on state crime; our colleagues at Griffith University and Australian National University in Australia for comments on early versions of the paper; and the anonymous reviewers. This paper was first presented to participants in the “State Crime in the Global Age” conference in Oñati, Spain, May 2008. We thank all conference participants for their contributions. We also are grateful for Michael Radelet’s support and guidance. Mostly, we thank the generosity of our research participants for trusting us with their stories. Funding for this research has been provided by: the External Proposal Development Incentive Program, Office of the Associate Provost of Research, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the American Sociological Association’s Fund for Advancement of the Discipline Award supported by the American Sociological Association and the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Saundra D. Westervelt

  2. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

    Kimberly J. Cook

Authors
  1. Saundra D. Westervelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly J. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saundra D. Westervelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Westervelt, S.D., Cook, K.J. Framing innocents: the wrongly convicted as victims of state harm. Crime Law Soc Change 53, 259–275 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9231-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9231-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation