Trust in the criminal justice system is based on the assumption that guilty people will be held accountable for their crimes and innocent people will not be convicted. Unfortunately, every year the criminal justice system falsely convicts innocent citizens. Wrongful convictions (or miscarriages of justice – both terms can be used interchangeably) are defined as those legal convictions that wrongly accuse an innocent person of the crime in question (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Although the actual case of wrongful conviction is unknown, it is estimated that approximately 1% of all prisoners were wrongly accused, which corresponds to approximately 6,000–10,000 miscarriages of justice each year (Denov & Campbell, 2005). The justice system is made up of various groups and legal actors, making a miscarriage possible at any stage of the legal process, or at the hands of any legal actor. Eyewitness error, police misconduct, or falsification of evidence are examples of factors that can lead to a wrongful conviction. The aim of this work is to analyze the ex post facto mechanisms that support an unjust conviction once it has occurred. The Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG), the review criteria under Article 696.1 of the Criminal Code and the role of the Minister for Justice will be examined before assessing current criticisms of these systems. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 2002, enforcement under Article 690 of the Criminal Code was reformed and replaced by Article 696.1 (Department of Justice, 2012). The reform included, among other things, greater transparency of the process, outlined criteria for the Minister of Justice to grant a remedy and eligibility criteria (Department of Justice, 2012). The Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG), a unit of the Department of Justice, is responsible for undertaking part of the review process. The findings are then passed to the Minister for Justice before a recommendation is made (Department of Justice, 2012). For the review process to take place, the wrongfully convicted person must meet a number of conditions (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Applicants must have been guilty of a criminal offense or be classified as a dangerous or long-term offender. They must also exhaust all levels of appeal before the form becomes available to them. Finally, the CCRG will review the candidate's case only if there is new and significant information to present. This information may include newly acquired DNA evidence or material that was not presented to the courts during the sentencing process (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Whether these criteria are met will be determined in the first phase of the review process, where a preliminary investigation will take place to determine eligibility. After this stage, all relevant information and evidence will be examined for reliability, which may involve interviewing witnesses, carrying out required forensic tests and consulting associated police personnel. The findings of the investigation are then condensed into a report, where the applicant has the opportunity to take stock of the investigation to date. Finally, the Minister of Justice receives legal advice to help guide his or her decision (Denov & Campbell, 2005). It is important to note that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to reach a guilty or not guilty plea (Denov & Campbell, 2005). The minister's role is limited to making recommendations for possible remedies, such as a new trial or requesting theopinion of the court on how to proceed. On the surface, enforcement is a mechanism for restoring justice once a wrongful conviction has occurred. Persons who maintain their innocence after conviction may apply for review under this section. While the intent was to provide an avenue for the wrongfully convicted to seek justice, section 696.1 does not fully achieve this goal and may actually support a false conviction. The CCRG has been criticized for its lack of independence and transparency (Scullion, 2004). As a unit of the Department of Justice, the CCRG is a statutory body that investigates legal matters and agents (Roach, 2012). By conducting internal investigations, supervisory powers remain within the scope of the law. The lack of transparency strengthens the concentration of investigative powers, as there is less possibility of external criticism. Because the Canadian review board is not independent, there is concern about whether the CCRG and the Minister of Justice conduct objective investigations based on the evidence or whether they are influenced by the Court's decisions (Saguil, 2007). This results in negative implications for the applicant due to institutional conflict. The request is being considered by the same body that led to the initial miscarriage of justice, casting doubt on the fairness of the review process. Of Canada's existing commissions of inquiry, six have recommended creating an independent panel to review wrongful convictions (Public Prosecution Service of Canada, 2011). Unfortunately, it is unclear whether recommendations made by a commission of inquiry are taken into account (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Many advocates for the wrongly convicted have said Canada should adopt a review model similar to North Carolina's. The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission (NCIIC) is an independent review body composed of eight members, including lay people, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a victim advocate, among others (Roach, 2012). This diverse committee of members prevents the review process from being dominated by legal officials and allows for equal representation and deliberation. Unlike the CCRG, the NCIIC can hold public hearings and publish trial transcripts, increasing its transparency (Roach, 2012). Although the establishment of the CCRG was intended to investigate cases of false conviction, its lack of independence and transparency could actually result in a miscarriage of justice. Despite the replacement of Article 690 with Article 696.1, the current application form still creates some difficulties for wrongfully convicted individuals. The criteria for review are quite narrow. First, the wrongfully convicted must exhaust all levels of the judiciary before being granted access to the application (Denov & Campbell, 2005). This criterion is difficult for appellants to meet because the appeals process requires a substantial financial investment. Economically marginalized people tend to be overrepresented in miscarriages of justice, because lack of financial resources is one of many risk factors that increase the likelihood of being falsely accused of a crime (Menard & Pollock, 2014). Not only are the economically marginalized targeted for wrongful conviction, but they are unable to afford adequate counseling to combat the false accusation. This was the case of Donald Marshall, Jr., where his lawyer failed to provide adequate evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or seek disclosure of evidence (Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, 1989) . . Therefore, there is an inherent barrier written into s.696.1. The question is aimed at obtaining justicefor the unjustly convicted, but this group often does not have the economic resources necessary to access it. A second requirement for screening is that the candidate provide new and significant information. This could be new DNA evidence or evidence that had not previously been presented in court. This criterion presents two issues. First, DNA testing is an extremely expensive process and must be undertaken at the expense of the accused (Denov & Campbell, 2005). As stated, economically marginalized people are often targeted in wrongful convictions (Menard & Pollock, 2014). Therefore, the wrongfully convicted person may not have the means to produce DNA evidence, if it is available. Second, although there have been 250 exonerations using DNA evidence, not all cases collect biological samples (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Unlike murder and rape, robbery- or drug-related crimes typically do not involve the collection of DNA evidence (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Of the 250 exonerations through 2011, there were 69 murder cases, 48 ​​sexual assault convictions, and 139 rape cases (Smith & Hattery, 2011). These statistics do not include cases of drug-related crimes or robberies. Accordingly, the biological evidence requirement limits the scope of the exemption. It becomes difficult for those who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes without DNA evidence to have their cases reviewed. The intention of s.696.1 was to allow those wrongly convicted to challenge their convictions after exhausting the appeal process. This criterion, while modifying this section of the penal code, prevents those who do not have economic resources from accessing the application. Even with the necessary financial resources, the request for new and significant information, which is usually DNA evidence, limits the scope of the exoneration to those convicted of serious indictable crimes. Those convicted of crimes without DNA evidence rarely have access to exoneration through enforcement. In practice, the review criteria outlined under s.696.1 may indeed prevent those wrongly convicted from seeking justice. Applicants who meet the review criteria face an arduous journey to exemption. The process has been criticized for the length of the review. David Milgaard, for example, was accepted for consideration only three years after submitting his application (Campbell, 2008). Delays in the review can be attributed to lack of staff in the review board and the stages of the investigation, which may involve interviewing witnesses and consulting with police personnel. The CCRG is limited to six lawyers, which is not enough to cope with the number of requests submitted each year (Campbell, 2008). In a recent analysis of s.696.1, Roach (2012) revealed that between April 2007 and March 2011, the Minister for Justice had considered only 88 applications under this section, when the number of applications was far greater. To further explore this issue, between April 2003 and March 2004, 29 applications were submitted for consideration. The minister completed 11 investigations and made only six decisions, all of which were rejected. From April 2005 to March 2006, the Minister of Justice received 39 requests. During that period, only two investigations were completed and, that year, the Minister reached only one decision, in which the case was referred to the Court of Appeal (Campbell, 2008). Evidently, the number of cases received each year exceeds the number of cases investigated. While cases may be accepted for review, there is no guarantee that the investigation will result in an exoneration or a referral to the Court of Appeals, as was the case with appeals heard between April 2003 and March 2004. Many of theremedies proposed by the Minister of Justice involve referring cases to the courts of first instance or appeal. Between April 2002 and March 2006, the Minister of Justice completed 22 investigations, but made only 13 decisions. Of these 13 decisions, more than half resulted in a referral to the Court of Appeal or an order for a new trial (Campbell, 2008). As previously mentioned, the CCRG has been criticized for its lack of independence, given that one government body is reviewing the decisions of another government body (Scullion, 2004; Saguil, 2007). Not only is the CCRCG itself criticized, but the solutions proposed by the Minister of Justice strengthen the concentration of power. Bias is rooted in a self-regulating system, and the use of the adversarial system to correct errors perpetrated by legal actors limits the scope of available remedies (Campbell, 2008). This presents some difficulties for those wrongly convicted, as they are forced to seek remedy under the system that resulted in a miscarriage of justice in the first place. Although the CCRG and Article 696.1 of the Criminal Code have been criticized for weaknesses such as transparency, independence and costs, attempts have been made to address these problems (Scullion, 2004). To address the issue of transparency, the applicant can review the investigation during the third phase of the process (Denov & Campbell, 2005; Scullion, 2004). This allows the candidate to have access to the collected documentation and provide input to the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, s.690 has been amended and replaced by s.696.1, which has resulted in a greater degree of transparency. This is not to say that the review process is completely transparent in its current form, but that efforts have been made to increase public accessibility. In terms of independence, the CCRG and the Minister of Justice have been criticized for a conflict of interest, given that one government body is investigating the decisions of another (Scullion, 2004). Critics suggest that decisions made by the Minister of Justice cannot be impartial given the strong influence of other departments and legal actors. However, it is important not to overlook the fact that the justice system, and the actors within it, seek to achieve justice. Although the current format of the review process is not ideal, and an independent review panel is preferred, the Minister for Justice and members of the CCRG are still aware of the legal importance placed on the prevention of wrongful convictions (Scullion, 2004). Finally, many have argued that the review process is expensive. It is important to interpret this criticism correctly. The application process itself is not expensive, as all required documents were obtained during the initial appeals process (Scullion, 2004). The cost associated with the review process depends on obtaining DNA evidence if it becomes available after trial and retaining an attorney (Denov & Campbell, 2005; Scullion, 2004). Ultimately, efforts have been made to address these criticisms and improve the efficiency of s.696.1. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay In conclusion, I have attempted to demonstrate the ways in which the roles of the CCRG and the Minister of Justice, as well as enforcement under Article 696.1, are ex post facto mechanisms designed to achieve justice for the wrongly convicted . However, I have shown that, in practice, these mechanisms often fail to achieve their goal of justice. S.696.1 of the Penal Code, as well as the Minister of Justice and members of the CCRG, often support an unjust conviction. The CCRG has been criticized for.