I love true crime shows. The formula for these shows is simple: learn about the crime itself, investigate a few leads, find a suspect, prove the suspect is guilty, and go home, congratulating ourselves on a job well-done. Not only are these stories entertaining and chock-full of good guys, bad guys, cliff hangers, red herrings, and constant danger, but we are also granted the release of knowing that we are safe and snuggled into the couch, with the bad guys in jail and the good guys always on the right side. But the neat, pat conclusions of most of these cases masks a frightening reality. According to a recent study from the National Academy of Sciences, 4.1% of all those who are sentenced to death in the United States are innocent (Gross et al. 7230). In 1923, Judge Learned Hand said, "Our [justice system] has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream" (7230). However, Hand's "unreal dream" is a reality for many. How does wrongful conviction occur, and why does it occur so frequently? And even more importantly, how can we prevent it?

2 First, we need to examine what "wrongful conviction" really means. According to legal scholar Michael Risinger, there are three categories. The first is "Conviction Despite Serious Legal Error." In this case, a conviction is wrongful because a legal error was made (for example, the suspect's home was [searched] without a warrant). The second category is "Conviction Despite Lack of Legal Culpability." According to this definition, a conviction is wrongful because the convicted party was not legally culpable (for example, a crime was committed by someone with severe mental illness). The third definition is the most problematic: "Conviction Despite Factual Innocence." In these cases, one of two things occurs: either no crime was committed, so there is no offender, or, more commonly, a crime was committed, but not by the convicted party (Risinger 762).

3 How can this happen? Although there are countless ways an investigation and trial can veer off course, most wrongful convictions occur for one or more of the following reasons: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, jailhouse snitches, poor forensic science, government and prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective counsel. If I've learned anything from TV crime shows, it's that DNA is a powerful tool for convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent. However, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, only 18 of the 91 exonerations in 2013 occurred due to DNA evidence, and the number of DNA exonerations decline annually ("Exonerations by Year"). So, although DNA evidence is an excellent tool for uncovering and proving wrongful convictions, its most effective use is uncovering the underlying causes of those wrongful convictions. It['s] only through understanding the issues and mending the fissures in the criminal justice system that allow for them, that we can slow the rate of wrongful convictions in the United States.

4 The most common cause of wrongful conviction is mistaken eyewitness identification. Nearly three-quarters of wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing were caused in part by incorrect eyewitness testimony ("Innocence Project"). In order to truly understand why this is the case, we need to look at how memory works. There are two kinds of human memory: short-term and long-term. Long-term memory involves the storage of memory which can later be retrieved (Green). This is the type of memory most often accessed in eyewitness identifications, and also the type that is most easily distorted.

5 Take the case of Ronald Cotton. In July 1984, a young woman named Jennifer Thompson was attacked and raped in her home. Thompson made a point to try and get a good look at her rapist. She turned on lights, making sure to see his face, and

immediately reported the crime to the police. Thompson was shown a photo array and informed that her assailant "may" be in the array. She identified Ronald Cotton, and the officer with her responded, "We thought this might be the one["] ("Innocence Project"). Thompson was then shown a live lineup of seven men, including Cotton. Thompson struggled with the selection, but eventually picked out Cottonthe only man who appeared in both the photo array and live lineup. The police informed Thompson that she'd selected the same person as she had in the photo array. Based on these identifications and other circumstantial evidence, Cotton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Ten years later, in 1994, DNA evidence from the case exonerated Cotton. Now, Thompson and Cotton travel the country to speak about eyewitness misidentification (Thompson-Cannino et al.).

6 So, what happened here? Jennifer Thompson did everything in her power to be an excellent eyewitness, and she still misidentified Cotton. Eyewitness identification occurs because of two variables: system variables, which involve the criminal justice system, and estimator variables, which affect eyewitness accuracy but are not under the purview of the criminal justice system (Wells et al.). Both variables were at play in the Ronald Cotton case. Some systemic factors included:

The second lineup. Ronald Cotton was the only person in both the photo array and the live lineup, which encouraged Thompson to identify him twice.

The officer's feedback. According to Thompson herself, her confidence in her identification grew after the officers provided positive feedback.

Some of the estimator factors included:

Weapon presence. Because her assailant had a weapon, Thompson was more inclined to focus on the weapon than on the assailant himself.

Own-race bias. Thompson is white, and her assailant was black (as is Ronald Cotton). Eyewitnesses are less accurate in their identifications when the person they are identifying is a race other than their own.

Passage of time. Memories decline in accuracy very quickly at first, then slower over time (Green).

7 Although many estimator variables cannot be controlled, system variables can be, and one of the most important systemic shifts to prevent misidentification is to ensure that the person who administers the lineup or photo array does not know the identity of the suspect. Frequently, body language cues or even (in the case of Thompson and Cotton) verbal clues from the administrator can influence a witness to identify the suspect.

8 Systemic issues in the criminal justice system cause wrongful convictions in other ways, too. While the vast majority of wrongful convictions occur due to honest mistakes or errors in judgment, there are also cases of police misconduct and government negligence. One of the most notorious of these took place in Chicago between the 1970s and 1990s under the supervision of Police Commander Jon Burge. In 1973, Anthony Holmes was arrested by Burge and brought to a police station. There, Holmes was tortured: beaten, verbally brutalized, suffocated with a bag, and subjected to a contraption of electro-shock torture (Taylor). Eventually, under extreme duress, Holmes confessed to murder. Later, Holmes's interrogation was cited by the police department in one of Burge's commendations as demonstrating "skillful questioning" (Conroy). Journalist James Conroy wrote a series of exposes on these offenses in the Chicago Reader beginning in 1990, detailing the horrifying torture and the victims' failed attempts to seek justice. Burge was later fired in 1993 and retired with pension to his boat in Florida. In 2003, Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all 167 men on death row in Illinois, out of concern that some of their confessions were coerced through torture. Burge was not arrested until 2008, when he was charged not for the torture, but for his involvement in covering it up (Shelton). Although the Burge case is an extreme example of government and police misconduct, it is a clear example of the importance of the public holding officers and government accountable for their actions.

9 Prosecutors, who represent the government in court, also occasionally exhibit misconduct. This can range from the malicious (such as the destruction of evidence) to the subtle (such as overstating the value of evidence). The most common form of prosecutorial misconduct is a Brady violation, which is defined as: "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution" ("Brady vs. Maryland"). Consider the case of Dewey Bozella, who was convicted of murder in 1983. In 2009, Bozella's lawyers conducted an independent investigation in which they uncovered testimony from multiple witnesses that would exonerate Bozellaall of which was withheld by the prosecution. The case was overturned (Denzel). Ineffective counsel can also be a cause of wrongful conviction. For example, an ineffective defense lawyer may fail to call witnesses who might support the defense, fail to obtain and submit DNA evidence for testing, fail to conduct independent investigations on behalf of their client, and more ("Ineffective Assistance").

10 While these examples demonstrate willful negligence, other causes of wrongful conviction are perfectly legal. Eighteen percent of wrongful convictions involve the testimony of a jailhouse snitch: a prisoner who allegedly learns information from another prisoner about an event that occurred outside the institution (Canada, Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee). So, why snitch? The main reason is that snitching is incentivized. According to USA Today, 48,895 federal convicts received reduced sentences for their testimony against other convicts between 2006 and 2011; that is one in every eight convicts (Heath). You could argue that jailhouse snitches should not be permitted to testify at all, but occasionally, they do help expose a wrongful conviction, such as Ronald Cotton's. While incarcerated for another crime, the actual perpetrator of the crimes Cotton was convicted of bragged about his activities to other inmates. A snitch told a prosecutor what he heard, and Cotton was granted a new trialthe one that exonerated him ("Innocence Project").

11 The final element in many wrongful convictions (around 30% of DNA exonerations) is also the most misunderstood: false confessions ("Innocence Project"). How could someone confess to a crime they didn't commit, and why would they? First, we should understand the three different errors that can lead to false confessions:

Misclassification error: This occurs when investigators wrongly decide a suspect is guilty, and the interrogation turns into an effort not to determine a suspect's guilt, but to convince the suspect to confess.

Coercion error: This occurs when the interrogator uses coercive techniques (isolation, deception, sleep deprivation, etc.) to elicit a confession.

Contamination error: This is the error that most often leads to false confessions. In a contamination error, the interrogator influences the suspect's narrative by filling in certain details that an innocent person would not know (Leo and Drizen 13-20).

12 Of course, while not all interrogations end in false confessions, there are a number of indicators for interrogations that may lead to them. For example, the length of interrogations can affect the rate of false confessions. Though typical interrogations last around two hours, 84% of interrogations leading to false confessions lasted over six hours (and averaged around 16 hours) (Drizen and Leo 946). Additionally, all suspects are read their Miranda rights prior to interrogation, which is familiar to any of us who love "Law & Order": "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand these rights?" The delivery and exact content of this statement varies from state to state, with some states making a point to emphasize a benefit to waiving one's rights or make the statement sound like an afterthought. Also, due to the impression many people have that "the truth will set me free," innocent people are significantly more likely to waive their rights and speak to police (Kassin 253).

13 Certain populations are more vulnerable to making false confessions. Juveniles are considered the most vulnerable: 42% of juvenile exonerees confessed to crimes they did not commit (Kassin 252). Minors tend to have more difficulty understanding legal wording (such as in the Miranda warning), are more susceptible to suggestion from interrogators, and have a less clear understanding of the consequences of their actions. Similarly, those with intellectual difficulties and mental illness are more vulnerable to false confessions. The case of Eddie Joe Lloyd is a clear example of this. While Lloyd was hospitalized for a mental illness, he wrote a series of letters to police, trying to help them solve local crimes. Officers selected one of Lloyd's letters and told him that if he confessed to that crime, it would help them find the real perpetrator. He did so, and was convicted and sent to prison for 17 years before his exoneration ("Innocence Project"). At least 22% of the false confessions currently known were made by those with a mental illness or intellectual disability (Drizen and Leo 918).

14 As I explored the many reasons why wrongful convictions occur, I began to wonder about the influence of the true crime shows I, and so many others, love so much. We love the drama and the human interest, but we also love seeing justice done. Does our obsession with these stories and our easy comfort with the way they end somehow add to the problem of wrongful convictions? My investigation into this issue led me to what is known in legal circles as the "CSI Effect," named for the famous TV crime show. According to the 2006 Nielsen ratings, five of the top ten television shows that year were related to forensics and criminal investigations. That's about 100 million viewers (Shelton). The "CSI effect" generally holds that due to these forensic science-focused shows, juries have excessively high expectations of the accuracy, quality, and utility of scientific evidence in the courtroom. They also tend to expect more certainty from scientific evidence, despite the fact that in most cases, there is no such thing as 100% forensic certainty. Despite how alarmist all of this sounds, no scientists can seem to agree on the extent of this effect, and many even argue that shows like this may help improve juries' understanding of the justice system.

15 There's no easy solution to stymying wrongful convictions. Stopping them entirely would require a complete overhaul in our criminal justice system, down to the very words officers use in their day-to-day interactions. I concede that it is probably impossible to accomplish a goal of that magnitude, but there are small changes we can make that might help. One change that was recently implemented in some states is the requirement that all interrogations be videotaped. According to Illinois Public Act 97-1150, a confession resulting from interrogation will be allowed only if: "(1) an electronic recording is made of the custodial interrogation; and (2) the recording is substantially accurate and not intentionally altered" (Illinois State, General Assembly, House). Remember that Illinois is the state where Jon Burge committed so many atrocities in interrogation rooms. This requirement makes torture on that scale very close to impossible.

16 Finally, considering the "CSI effect" and juries' lack of understanding about the inner workings of the justice system, an improved set of jury instructions would be useful. Juries with a clearer understanding of eyewitness misidentification, incentivized snitching, and false confessions may help them make a more informed ruling. In other words, more information. That is the only overarching conclusion I can make: more information not only for juries, but for law enforcement officers, for lawyers, for government officials, and for the public. Navigating the process of the justice system requires far more than just to "learn about the crime itself, investigate a few leads, find a suspect, prove the suspect is guilty, and go home." We must navigate numerous uncertainties, take time to verify everything we learn, and most of all, understand the grey areas in a system that prefers the black and white, the right and wrong, the guilty and not guilty. Only once we understand why wrongful convictions occur can we begin to work on how to stop them.

"The 'Unreal Dream'" is a variation of the proposal genre: What's the problem and what can be done about it? (See Chapter 8.) When you compose a proposal, you typically make a choice about how much you'll emphasize the problem and how much you'll emphasize the solution. What choice do you see Burns making about that balance in this essay? Is there a rhetorical explanation for that?