Remedying Wrongful Conviction: Comparisons between The Royal Prerogative of Mercy in England and Wales and Clemency in the USA

Cooper, Sarah Lucy and Burrows, Hannah Remedying Wrongful Conviction: Comparisons between The Royal Prerogative of Mercy in England and Wales and Clemency in the USA. In: Executive Clemency: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives. Routledge Research in Human Rights Law . Routledge, UK. (Submitted)

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

The problem of wrongful conviction is “present around the world.” This situation has motivated stakeholders to consider ways to prevent, identify, correct, and atone wrongful conviction. This has led to an increased understanding about how criminal justice systems, including those established in the United States of America (USA) and England and Wales (E&W), produce wrongful convictions. In both jurisdictions, individuals, groups, and institutions have emerged to pursue wrongful conviction-focused research, litigation, and reform.
In both the USA and E&W, the clemency/pardon power has an error correction function. In 1993, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declared clemency the “fail safe" of the American criminal justice system, and the “historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice…” This ruling thrust clemency into each state’s mechanics for correcting error. Months later, in 1994, the High Court of England and Wales stated, “The prerogative of mercy…is now a constitutional safeguard against mistakes…”, and that “… pardon should be reserved for cases where it can be established that the convicted person was morally and technically innocent.” Subsequently, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, was given the power to refer cases (with reasons) to the Secretary of State so s/he could consider the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
This chapter provides a compact comparative review of the relationship between wrongful conviction and the clemency/pardon power in the USA and E&W. Part I outlines current clemency/pardon frameworks in both jurisdictions. Part II explores common themes across both jurisdictions, namely (1) eligibility and standards of proof; (2); transparency and reviewability; and (3) political will. It concludes that both jurisdictions encounter similar challenges when utilizing the clemency/pardon power to correct error, and offers five ideas for fostering better practice in both jurisdictions.

Item Type: Book Section
Additional Information: Version accepted by Editors on November 5, 2018.
Subjects: M100 Law by area
M200 Law by Topic
Divisions: Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User: Sarah Cooper
Date Deposited: 20 Nov 2018 13:29
Last Modified: 20 Nov 2018 13:29
URI: http://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6601

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Research

In this section...