EN:

Many exonerees do not receive compensation from the state after they are released (43%) because most states have exclusionary laws that bar exonerees from receiving compensation (n = 16 states) (Compensation Primer, 2022). This study examined public perceptions of exoneree compensation, exclusionary laws and addressed the broader question of who deserves compensation (according to community members). Online participants (n = 225) read an article about a fictional exoneree who either pleaded guilty or was convicted by a jury trial and who either did or did not have a subsequent conviction. An exoneree with a subsequent conviction was perceived as less deserving of financial compensation (roughly $8,000 less annually) and less deserving of support services. It was rated less positively than an exoneree who did not have a subsequent conviction. No differences were found between an exoneree who pleaded guilty and an exoneree who was convicted by a jury trial, demonstrating little impact of this common exclusionary rule on community members’ perceptions and decisions. Overall, participants overwhelmingly supported exoneree compensation (only 6.7% disagreed). However, there are caveats. Community members are less supportive of compensating exonerees who have subsequent involvement with the justice system. These results illustrate possible biases the public has against an already marginalized population that has experienced a miscarriage of justice. Because public opinion can affect policy change, these results significantly affect state exclusionary rules and exoneree compensation policies.

EN:

The past three decades have seen at least 3,200 exonerations across North America. While this number continues to grow, attention must be turned to facilitating successful re-entry amongst this group. By conducting a content analysis of 57 Canadian exonerees, I gathered demographics and common case characteristics to assess the re-entry success of exonerees. Successful re-entry was incredibly difficult for the majority of exonerees due to a lack of specialized re-entry services, counselling, compensation legislation, and healthcare. Exonerees are suffering in the same ways as legitimate offenders while incarcerated and afterward, all while being offered drastically less assistance from Canada’s institutions and government

EN:

This paper will explore how the criminal justice system’s ingrained prejudice against LGBTQ2S+ people can lead to wrongful convictions. Primarily, this paper will focus on the negative stereotypes of and myths surrounding queer people, rooted in homophobia and transphobia, that lead to wrongful convictions. Examining the cases of Miguel Castillo, Bernard Baran, The San Antonio Four, and Monica Jones, this paper will prove that these pervasive and dangerous stereotypes impact queer people at every step of the criminal justice system. This paper will conclude by briefly discussing instances of queer wrongful convictions in the Canadian context.