This is the example paragraph I used for my Criminology Unit 3, Ac3.2 section, in which I achieved 98/100 (A*). It perfectly matches the criteria and contains all the details/examples you need.
Ac3.2
Unsafe verdicts occurs when the evidence used to come to a conclusion is inadmissible, unreliable
and not credible, there are two types: miscarriage of justice and other wrongful convictions. A
miscarriage of justice can be identified when the defendant appeals and wins their case, so their
conviction is quashed. It is the court of appeal who dismiss the case against the defendant, usually
due to new evidence coming to light (e.g. improvement of DNA analysis proving the innocence of the
suspect). The idea of wrongful convictions focuses on trial procedures being carried out improperly,
which then affects the fairness of the trial. For instance, jury irregularities and tampering can cast
doubt on whether the defendant is truly guilty or not.
One reason why miscarriage of justice may be carried out is unethical and unstandardised
procedures used to gather evidence. What is meant by this is that the prosecution team may use
tactics involving emotional damage and immoral remand conditions in hopes of extracting a
confession. This results in a miscarriage of justice as suspects are practically forced into pleading
guilty (even if they are innocent) once they can no longer bare the discrete torture. In November
1974, 21 deaths were caused by two bombing incidents in Birmingham. Suspicion arrised onto 6
Northern Irish catholic men directing their arrest. Once the police saw how stubborn the six men
were towards denying their guilt, they resorted to inhumane tactics like depriving the men of food,
threatening and beating them, as well as constantly mocking them. This exhaustion led to four men
signing their confessions meaning the six men were therefore taken to trial. These confessions
combined with the expert testimony from Dr Frank Skuse (claiming there were traces of explosives
on their hands) meant that all 6 defendants were found guilty and given life sentences. Despite an
MP publishing a book on his reasons for their innocence, they were denied appeal due to the Court
of Appeal stating that all six convictions were safe. It wasn’t until 1990 that their appeal was
approved: new evidence of police fabrication was discovered which also questioned the reliability of
the forensic expert's evidence. Finally, in 1991, all 6 suspects were freed under the fact that
convictions were both “unsafe and unsatisfactory.” This case highlights major miscarriages of justice
as a result of corrupted police forces – the six men were treated horribly leaving them with no choice
but to confess. Not only were they stripped of their freedom, but they also suffered emotionally, for
years on end, for a case they played no part in. In today's criminal justice system, this type of
miscarriage of justice is unlikely to happen primarily due to there now being more laws prohibiting
the use of unethical methods when gathering evidence.
Another reason for the occurrence of miscarriage of justice is the over-reliance of inaccurate witness
testimonies. In cases where there are little to no forensic evidence, juries may turn to the words of
the witness when concluding the verdict. If the witness lies about any details, an innocent person
may be convicted on the base of unreliable evidence, resulting in an unsafe verdict and a miscarriage
of justice. Stefan Kizko was a vulnerable suspect due to his mental capacity of a 12-year-old, he was
charged and convicted for the murder of Lesley Molseed after 4 witnesses claimed he exposed his
intentions to them a day prior to the murder. These testimonies led to the police assuming his guilt
and putting him through intensive questioning that involved manipulating him into believing that if
he confessed, he will be able to go home to his mother. Both the confession and the eyewitness
testimonies led to him being convicted for Lesley’s murder. After serving 16 years, his conviction was
quashed after the discovery of his infertility (the semen found on Lesley’s jacket couldn’t have been
from him). Seeing that the case is collapsing, the witnesses came forward for their lies, saying
everything they did was “for a laugh.” Stefan was released after the appeal; however, he died two
months later due to his physical and mental health seriously deteriorating in prison. It is clear that
Stefan hadn’t received a fair trial: the witness statements weren’t properly cross-examined and after
them, the police only focused on evidence incriminating Kizko. The fact that the witnesses only
messed with the investigation “for a laugh” meant that an innocent person had to spend 16 years in
prison, constantly being beaten due to his label being a sex offender. He even developed
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller rj59. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
