Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People wrongly convicted in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Any rename proposals should be discussed on the article's talkpage. WjBscribe 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People wrongly convicted in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV including the title of the page - what is "wrongly"? An exoneration based on actual innocence (ie: DNA reversal) is very different from a case being overturned for legal reasons. Also, many entries involve standing convictions which simply state "conviction disputed" with no other information. Violates WP:L "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Tufflaw 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep On the surface the title seems POV, but look more closely. The term "wrongful conviction" is commonly used in the United States. I don't know whether it distinguishes between procedural errors and new evidence as reasons for overturning, but I don't think it should matter. As for the statement "his conviction is disputed" for people who are still in prison - good point. I think those cases should be removed. That's a talk page issue, not an AFD issue. YechielMan 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the term "wrongful conviction" has no real meaning. If someone is convicted of a crime and later found to be actually innocent, through DNA exoneration, or in some of the cases listed where a murder victim is later found to be actually alive, clearly the defendant was "wrongly convicted". However, some people are convicted and their conviction is later overturned for legal, not factual reasons. Was that person "wrongly convicted"? Sometimes a case can't be retried due to witnesses dying/disappearing/whatever, or for various logistical reasons. That doesn't mean a person whose case was overturned was "wrongly convicted". What if there's a conviction which is later overturned, and then the defendant is retried and convicted? Was he "wrongly convicted" during the period between the appeal and the retrial? I think the phrase is extremely problematic and POV, and the way it's used here in particular is troubling. Tufflaw 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IF this article is kept, all those entried that say the conviction is "disputed" (but hasn't actually been overturned) would need to be removed since that is obviously POV to say that they are wrongly convicted. TJ Spyke 04:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if this is kept, the title needs to be changed to refer to "overturned convictions" instead of "people wrongly convicted". --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is not POV to say some disputed convictions are wrongful. Mark Kirk of Delaware was convicted of starting a fire using 70 proof alcohol. The conviction is wrongful because 70 proof alcohol will not burn. It remains disputed because he still remains convicted.--Danras 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the jury didn't think so. ALL convictions are disputed, every single trial starts with a not guilty plea, and many convicted defendants continue to proclaim their innocence and appeal. Do we list them all? Tufflaw 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tufflaw is right, just people they dispute the conviction doesn't mean they have been "wrongly" convicted. I think Mary has a good idea, make it "Overturned convictions in the United States". That is still a problem though because how do you determine which ones are worth noting? Convictions gets overturned all the time and most aren't notable. TJ Spyke 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but it must be limited to those where there was an official finding of some sort. That would appear to be about half the list. As mentioned, the problem will be when someone is exonerated legally but some official nonetheless consider him still guilty. A common US phrase is "actual innocence". DGG 05:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. "Wrongful conviction" is a broad term but it is common at least in the US. It may be useful to list separately those exonerated by evidence and those whose convictions were overturned and not further contested (note that in most such latter cases the individual gets a new trial, not a get-out-of-jail-free card). But in a legal sense there is almost no difference -- that is, the new evidence, however damning DNA may seem to the public, is merely a technicality calling into doubt one aspect of the prosecution's case. Under an adversarial system of law it can only be so. Additionally, the presumption of innocence means that someone whose conviction is overturned is presumed innocent -- their guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying they were wrongfully convicted is saying that their conviction was based on an error and should not have proceeded. The article should probably be retitled, though, as "wrongly" is not the same as "wrongfully". --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment U.S. courts, especially appeals courts, do not maintain that legal convictions are synonymous with actual guilt. They often refuse or are legally prohibited from considering new evidence. See Leonel Torres Herrera. Some here want use courts as authorities to determine wrongfulness, but courts themselves disavow that they are such authorities. I would suggest that determining “wrongfulness” based on overly strict criteria is conservative or ultra conservative, and that a neutral POV is by definition moderate. Common sense indicates that some convictions are wrongful, whether or not some court has overturned them. Also, “wrongful” does not mean absolute innocence, it only means that a conviction is not supported by known evidence.--Danras 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From a standpoint of American jurisprudence, at least, any conviction that has been overturned, whether by new evidence or what is demeaned as a "technicality" (such as an illegal search), is wrongful. A person whose conviction has been overturned by a court is legally innocent. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine actual innocence or actual guilt. In any case, this isn't a place for disputed convictions, which would practically be all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete on the basis that I believe this is simply too broad a topic for a useful, concise list, and as such would almost violate the WP:NOT provision regarding directories. I get the rationale behind it, and I don't have a POV issue. A better way to approach this would be to create articles strictly based upon the crime: ie. People wrongly convicted of murder in the United States; ... of treason; ...of armed robbery; etc etc. And even so, such lists will need to be monitored constantly otherwise people with agendas could add names to the list making this a WP:BLP and libel nightmare. My first instinct is "don't go there" which is why I vote to delete, but if people want to have these lists, then let's at least make them more specific otherwise there could potentially be thousands of names listed here. 23skidoo 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rework. The title needs to be changed as mentioned above, to better match proper legal definitions, and a lead paragraph needs to be written to provide some context and inform the reader as to precisely what is meant by a "wrongful conviction" assuming that is the inclusion criteria, so as not to confuse this with a list of people who were later proven innocent. Or, if consensus is to make it a list of such people, rename the title accordingly and clarify that with a lead paragraph. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move persons not legally exonerated to "People widely believed to have been wrongfully convicted in the United States" or some such (unwieldy, I know). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That becomes a problem in terms of what does "widely believed" mean? Scott Peterson is on that list and I've never heard anyone claim that he's innocent except for him. Tufflaw 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But remove any names for which there are not solid findings (multiple reliable sources) that they were actually innocent. A guilty person may be "wrongly convicted" by a technical fault in the prosecution, and released when the death of witnesses has made a retrial impossible. I would include such cases as rapists freed when DNA analysis showed they were innocent, such as Gary Dotson. Other good entries are those in which the "murdered" person turns up alive somewhere. Do not broaden the list to everyone whose conviction was overturned on a technicality. Edison 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The American Bar Association published a 2003 study on wrongful convictions. Obviously the definition of wrongful may vary based on any given observer's point of view. The study's criteria limited wrongful convictions studied thus:

• a new trial was granted and the defendant was acquitted;
• a pardon was granted due to new evidence;
• innocence was established on the basis of overwhelming evidence (and the defendant was freed);
• appellate court review proved innocence.

I think it's clear that "wrongful convictions" realistically include only persons whose conviction has been removed or who have been freed (sometimes clearing the conviction is a separate legal proceeding). Otherwise this is just a POV list. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove anyone who is still convicted. It's not wrongful until a court agrees. Do NOT remove people whose were "overturned on a technicality". That will lead to endless arguing over what constitutes a "technicality", AND it's just as likely to exclude the "innocent" as the "guilty" (technicalities don't play favorites). The law has declared these people not guilty; it's preposterous, and a violation of WP:NPOV for us to claim differently. Even if "everyone knows he did it"; heck, even if he later admits he did it! "Convicted" is a legal term, and it's silly to use anything but the legal definition in an article on this topic. (I might suggest moving it to People wrongfully convicted in the United States, though, as "wrongful conviction" is the most commonly used term for this.) Oh, and the bloody thing needs references and citations, of course. As it stands, it fails WP:ATT/WP:V completely, but it's a clearly notable topic. Xtifr _tälk 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My major problem with the term "wrongly" or "wrongfully" is that it appears to make a value judgment about the conviction, whereas there's a significant difference between a conviction set aside due to actual innocence, and one set aside for what is, for lack of a better word, a "technicality". An example: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of Rape and Robbery. The Rape charge is set aside by the Supreme Court in the case that created the term "Miranda Warnings". The Robbery charge was not set aside. Was he wrongly convicted of Rape? He is later retried on the rape charge and convicted. Was he wrongly convicted the first time? Or did his wrongful conviction become valid again on the retrial? And who was wrong? The court? The prosecutor? The police? The jury? If this article survives the AFD, which looks likely, I suggest that it be retitled as suggested above to something about "overturned convictions", if we're going to include cases which were set aside due to actual innocence. Otherwise, the term "wrongful" or "wrongly" makes it appear that a position is being taken about the validity of the underlying case, which is not true. Tufflaw 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tufflaw, again, I remind you that in the United States and other legal systems derived from English common law, we have an adversarial court structure. There is no legal differentiation between actual innocence established by DNA, and "technical" innocence due to improper prosecution. "Overturned on a technicality" is a political term, not a legal one. The case you cite would not be a "wrongful conviction" in the strict sense used by the ABA study above. To alleviate concerns about whether "wrongful" ascribes a POV to inclusion, the term should be properly defined in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a practicing criminal law attorney for 9 years I'm familiar with the adversarial system. That has nothing to do with my arguments. That there is no LEGAL differentiation between a conviction overturned for actual innocence as opposed to a legal reason does not mean that the title of the article is not misleading. In furtherance of this problem, many of the entries in the article claim that a person was "exonerated", even in cases where the case being overturned had nothing to do with innocence. A person is exonerated when it is determined that they are innocent (see exoneration). If the article remains it should be renamed, all "disputed" convictions should be removed, as well as claims that everyone else was "exonerated". Tufflaw 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we do agree, as I have stated above that I do not believe this article should contain "disputed" convictions, and additionally all entries should be properly cited. If someone is formally "exonerated" we should be specific -- 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside her conviction, for instance (see Georgia Thompson). If someone is exonerated by DNA evidence that should be cited. And so forth. That is, the only cases that we can truthfully say were wrongful convictions are those where there was a formal finding. That finding should be in the article, or there is no point in having the list. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do agree :) Tufflaw 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Wrongly convicted is susceptible to too many plausible meanings some (but not all of which) have been hashed out above; the one that is not mentioned but is currently common is that someone who has broken a law that is disagreed with (these days, protesting outside the White House or Bush's ranch, assisted suicide, pot possession even for medical reasons; in the 50's and 60's: people convicted of draft evasion, miscegenation, not going to the back of the bus when Jim Crow laws were on the books, etc.). Too many meanings and too POV, do we dare have a People wrongly acquitted in the United States, and why not, because just the overturn of a conviction in the US means nothing, most people are just retried and reconvicted statistically. Remember Ernest Arthur Miranda for whom the Miranda warning is named, conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court because he didn't know his rights, guess what happened on retrial: convicted (but wrongly the first time? let the POV flow...) Carlossuarez46 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove references to cases where convictions have not been overturned. Perhaps the article should be renamed/moved to Overturned Convictions in the United States Fixer1234 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.