Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-8vdwt Total loading time: 0.493 Render date: 2021-10-28T00:18:28.474Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Politics of Wrongful Conviction Legislation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

William D. Hicks*
Affiliation:
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
Kevin J. Mullinix
Affiliation:
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KN, USA
Robert J. Norris
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
*
Corresponding Author: William D. Hicks, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA Email: hickswd@appstate.edu

Abstract

Wrongful convictions are an increasing salient feature of criminal justice discourse in the United States. Many states have adopted reforms to mitigate the likelihood of wrongful convictions, discover errors, and provide redress in the wake of exonerations, yet we know little about why some are seemingly more committed to reducing such errors than others. We argue that public opinion is consequential for policy reform, but its effects are contingent on the electoral vulnerability of state lawmakers. We also suggest that advocacy organizations play a critical role in policy adoption. Incorporating data from all 50 states from 1989 to 2018, we investigate the adoption of five types of wrongful conviction reforms: (1) changes to eyewitness identification practices, (2) mandatory recording of interrogations, (3) the preservation of biological evidence, (4) access to postconviction DNA testing, and (5) exoneree compensation. Our results highlight a more nuanced view of how public opinion shapes policy.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, Per Kragh, Borgan, Ornulf, Gill, Richard D., and Keiding, Niels. 2012. Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Andersen, Per Kragh, and Gill, Richard D.. 1982. “Cox’s Regression Model for Counting Processes: A Large Sample Study.” The Annals of Statistics 10 (4): 1100–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrilleaux, Charles, Holbrook, Thomas, and Langer, Laura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., DeBoef, S. L., and Boydstun, Amber E.. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 1997. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” The American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, Daniela, and Hanni, Miriam. 2018. “Two Sides of the Same Coin? Congruence and Responsiveness as Representative Democracy’s Currencies.” Policy Studies Journal 46 (S1): 1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boushey, Graeme. 2012. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the Diffusion of Innovations.” Policy Studies Journal 40 (1): 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Ben and Benedict, Wm Reed. 2002. “Perceptions of the Police: Past Findings, Methodological Issues, Conceptual Issues, and Policy Implications.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25: 543–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byfield, Natalie. 2014. Savage Portrayals: Race, Media, and the Central Park Jogger Story. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., Powell, Lynda W., and Moncrief, Gary F.. 2006. “The Effects of Term Limits on State Legislatures: A New Survey of the 50 States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31 (1): 105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce and Eichorst, Jason. 2013. “The Role of Party: The Legislative Consequences of Partisan Competition.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (1): 83109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2018. “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014.” The American Political Science Review 112 (2): 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2019. “Information and Issue Constraints on the Influence of Partisan Cues.” American Politics Research 47 (6): 1209–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, David. 1999. No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K. 2016. Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R., Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Haider-Markel, Donald. 2014. Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Derek A. 2018. The Structure of Policy Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fan, David P., Keltner, Kathy A., and Wyatt, Robert O.. 2002. “A Matter of Guilt or Innocence: How News Reports Affect Support for the Death Penalty in the United States.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (4): 439–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gromet, Dena M., and Darley, John M.. 2011. “Political Ideology and Reactions to Crime Victims: Preferences for Restorative and Punitive Responses.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (4): 830–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Samuel R., Possley, Maurice, and Stephens, Klara. 2017. Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States. Irvine, CA: National Registry of Exonerations.Google Scholar
Herweg, Nicole, Zahariadis, Nikolaos, and Zohlnhofer, Reimut. 2018. “The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, eds. Weible, Christopher M. and Sabatier, Paul A., 1754. Boulder, CO: Westview.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, William D. 2015. “Partisan Competition and the Efficiency of Lawmaking in American State Legislatures, 1991–2009.” American Politics Research 43 (5): 743–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, William D. 2020. “Replication Data for: The Politics of Wrongful Conviction Legislation.” UNC Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/RO9FZS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Van Dunk, Emily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” The American Political Science Review 87 (4): 955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innocence Project. n.d. “Policy Reform.” The Innocence Project. https://www.innocenceproject.org/policy/.Google Scholar
Kahn, Andrew, and Kirk, Chris. 2015. “What it’s Like to be Black in the Criminal Justice System.” Slate, August 9. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html (accessed March 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Kent, Stephanie L., and Carmichael, Jason T.. 2015. “Legislative Responses to Wrongful Conviction: Do Partisan Principals and Advocacy Efforts Influence State-Level Criminal Justice Policy?Social Science Research 52: 147–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingdon, John W. 2011. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2018. “State Legislative Election Returns, 1967–2016.” Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/3WZFK9, V3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, James C. Jr. 2014. “Study Finds Racial Disparity in Criminal Prosecutions.” New York Times, July 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html?_r=1 (accessed March 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Miller, Walter B. 1973. “Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64: 141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, Peterson, David A. M., and Ramirez, Mark D.. 2009. “Dynamic Representation (s): Federal Criminal Justice Policy and an Alternative Dimension of Public Mood.” Political Behavior 31 (4): 629–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert J. 2014. “Exoneree Compensation: Current Policies and Future Outlook.” In Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform: Making Justice, eds. Zalman, Marvin and Carrano, Julia. 289303. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, Robert J. 2017. Exonerated: A History of the Innocence Movement. New York: NYU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert J., Bonventre, Catherine L., Redlich, Allison D., Acker, James R., and Lowe, Carmen. 2017. “Preventing Wrongful Convictions: An Analysis of State Investigation Reforms.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 30 (4): 597626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert J. and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2019. “Framing Innocence: An Experimental Test of Wrongful Convictions and Public Opinion.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 16: 311–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Michael Larson, and Griffiths, Elizabeth. 2012. “Uneven Reparations for Wrongful Convictions: Examining the State Politics of Statutory Compensation Legislation.” Albany Law Review 75: 1283–327.Google Scholar
Payne, Brian K., Gainey, Randy R., Triplett, Ruth A., and Danner, Mona J.E.. 2004. “What Drive Punitive Beliefs? Demographic Characteristics and Justifications for Sentencing.” Journal of Criminal Justice 32: 195206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Steven. 2017. “Electoral Accountability for State Legislative Roll Calls and Ideological Representation.” American Political Science Review 111 (3): 555–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas J., and Evans, Jillian. 2005. “Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 660–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin, Kermes, Robert, Cambra, Haley, Curran, Adelyn, Kiley, Margaret, and Pant, Keshav. 2017. “The Rhetoric of Abolition: Continuity and Change in the Struggle Against America’s Death Penalty, 1900–2010.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 107: 757–80.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2017. “A Squire Index Update.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 17 (4): 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” The American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, Michael. 2011. Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Politics of Wrongful Conviction Legislation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Politics of Wrongful Conviction Legislation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Politics of Wrongful Conviction Legislation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *