Wrongful Essay

The accounts presented in the novel “Picking Cotton” are driven by the idea of wrongful conviction that originated from eyewitness misidentification. Resources of most criminal justice systems are mostly staked towards poor defendants. Mistaken witness identification has been the leading cause of most wrongful convictions. With eyewitness error being the single greatest cause leading to wrongful convictions across the nation, it seems logical to look into the impact that wrongful conviction had towards Ronald Cotton. Though an assessment of wrongful conviction, one has the chance to understand the implications that serving time in prison due to mistaken identity takes away from a person’s life. The criminal justice system is at fault each time someone is wrongfully convicted for a crime he or she did not commit. In the case involving Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson, little can be said regarding the rape victim’s intentions against Cotton. . Nonetheless, a few elements known by the investigators impact the choice to consider Cotton as a lead suspect for the situation, which sees him sentenced for a very long time dependent on a wrongdoing he didn't carry out. The principle contention of this examination depends on the effect that illegitimate feelings happen because of helpless treatment of observer misidentification by the American state and government courts, notwithstanding what it is meaning for the public activity of the imprisoned casualties.

“Number five got it right this time. I looked at his face. He had a light mustache; his eyes looked cold. His body was long and lean. He knew to wear brown, I thought, because he knew he had been wearing dark blue the night of my assault. And he knew to wear his hair differently. It was him. There was no doubt in my mind” (Jennifer Thompson-Cannino et al. 36).

After a confident identification of Cotton, additional evidence that included clothes that were matching a description provided by Thompson along with a piece of cotton that was found within the floor matching his shoes. With all that, the criminal justice department made a verdict that involved sentencing Ronald Cotton to life and 50 years in incarceration. The most appropriate step Ronald could take after his conviction was to reopen his case (Jennifer Thompson-Cannino et al. 36). Different encounters during his time in jail subsequent to being improperly indicted are a significant factor to consider on the grounds that it expounds the adverse consequences that are included spending time in jail in jail. Even subsequent to meeting Bobby Poole, who supposedly asserted obligation of assaulting Thompson alongside another lady that very evening and resuming the case, Thompson guaranteed that he was an attacker.

The use DNA extracted from a 10 year old sperm was significant in proving Ronald Cotton’s innocence and wrongful conviction. The results of the DNA test justified that Cotton was innocent and Bobby Poole was indeed the rapist. From an expert point of view, eyewitness testimonies are often faulty in most trials. Such claims are eligible to questioning the aspect of the human memory being fragile as well as vulnerable to any form of suggestion.

“There are many processing explanations as to why eyewitnesses may make inaccurate identifications” (David and Robin 265).

The two main properties of eyewitness testimony that comprise to being unreliable and easily persuasive to the jury since they believe an eyewitness has no reason to lie. Clearly, the major predicament in this case that has contributed to the wrongful conviction of Cotton is fragility of the victim’s memory. Thompson appears to have a malleable along with susceptible memory that should have been considered by the detectives handling the case as well as the jury to avoid the wrongful conviction of Cotton (Jennifer Thompson-Cannino et al. 36). With a powerless memory after the assault occurrence, it is questionable that Thompson was available to ideas, which is a condition that the criminal investigators may have exploited to control the conviction of Ronald since he had a background marked by rape cases. Notwithstanding the defenselessness of a casualty, the line-up is a sketchy methodology since it needs fitting rules to decide the most appropriate suspects to introduce before a wrongdoing casualty.

To counter argue the issue regarding wrongful conviction, it is necessary to state that the justice system reliance on eyewitness identification is playing a greater role in the state of the predicament. With the idea that most rape related cases tend to go unsolved there is motive behind the detectives approach to pin the evidence on Ronald Cotton. Several rape victims happen to undergo similar experiences to that of Thompson and receive no restitution. The inability to put all rapists behind bars has influenced the decision by the criminal justice department to fall for any form of evidence to incarcerate potential victims (David and Robin 265). Another significant factor to consider is the number of rape victims who opt not to pursue their cases, living in constant fear of similar attacks. Most victims experience trauma that leads to PTSD among adults. Some of the common consequences comprise of endless trips to the hospitals, an attorney, detectives, in addition to counselors. The numerous court appearances affect the life of most rape victims, which has been a major reason for fear among most making them opt out from pursuing the case. Knowledge of the fear and depression experienced by most victims is an important factor that may contribute to decisions by most jurors during a case involving a rape victim.

In summary, wrongful conviction has been a major concern within the criminal justice system since it affects the social lives of most innocent convicts. To draw conclusion from the case involving Ronald Cotton and Jenifer Thompson, it is clear that the justice system failed to implement better approaches to avoid the wrongful conviction of an innocent citizen. The conditions of the case may be less favorable to rape victim, but that is not reason enough to convict inappropriately an innocent person due to the need to curb the number of rape cases across the state. As a result to the failure of state and federal justice system, Cotton lost a significant part of his life during the 11 years he was in prison. From a social point of view, the wrongful conviction forced Cotton to watch helplessly as the health conditions of his parents deteriorate and his siblings growing up in his absence. Furthermore, losing touch with society throughout that period is another relevant point of interest that aligns with the wrongful conviction of a person. Even after proving his innocence, plenty has been lost throughout that period he has served time in prison. The criminal justice system has a great responsibility to ensure that the number of instances people are wrongfully convicted is lessened.

Work Cited

David A. Sonenshein And Robin Nilon. Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions: Let’s Give Science a Chance.

Jennifer Thompson-Cannino et al., Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption 36–37 (2009).