Talk:List of miscarriage of justice cases/Archive 1

Colin Stagg
I'm not sure the Colin Stagg case was a miscarriage of justice in the strictest sense, as he was found not guilty by the court. The "injustice" in his case had nothing to do with the judicial system. It was caused by the refusal of the police, media and public to accept - until it was irrefutably proven - that he really wasn't the killer.

I would agree that Colin Stagg should not be included for the reasons given above. In addition, it is wrong to say that he was falsely imprisoned. It should read "wrongly accused". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.159.120 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rex Haig
I suggest Rex Haig be removed as it has been found that although his murder conviction has been quashed, he was probably involved in the murder and his innocence has not been proved (article has citation for this). Nurg (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ludovic Kennedy
RIP Ludovic Kennedy 1920 - 2009, one of the greatest campaigners against miscarriage of justice, and the first of the post war generation in the UK to challenge the so called infallibility of the Uk Legal system.

Lincolnshire Poacher (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Hill
Joe Hill's innocence is legendary. That's why I undid the removal of his name. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Joe Hill's innocence might be "legendary", sir, but it does not meet the stated criteria for inclusion in this list. The criteria are:
 * 1) a convicted individual was later found to be innocent of the crime
 * 2) a consensus exists that the individual was unjustly punished
 * 3) a conviction has been quashed and no retrial has taken place
 * None of those things are true of Joe Hill and not even his own Wikipedia page claims he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He does not belong here.  Cottonshirt  τ   16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nat Turner
Nat Turner was a freedom fighter. I undid his removal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nat Turner was the leader of a rebellion that killed 55 men, women and children, and he specifically confessed to the murder of one woman. There is little doubt in history that the charges were not true. Furthermore, there were others arrested who were not convicted, so the response wasn't a general show trial of all thought to be involved. Freedom fighter or not, he committed crimes during his fighting, and was duly convicted for them. His name should be removed from this section. QuilaBird (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "In total, the state executed 56 blacks suspected of having been involved in the uprising. In the aftermath, close to 200 blacks, many of whom had nothing to do with the rebellion, were beaten, tortured, and killed. " Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Socrates
I anticipate two objections to the inclusion of Socrates. Firstly, including it under the sub heading "Greece" rather than "Ancient Greece" or "Athens" implies the modern Greek state is complicit. This seems fair because the Greeks are willing to take credit for all the good stuff we derive from classical Greece. Secondly, he's never been exonerated of impiety or corrupting youth, perhaps other editors feel he was guilty as. MartinSFSA (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Roseanne Catt

 * This is a list of miscarriage of justice cases. This list includes cases where a convicted individual was later found to be innocent of the crime and has received either an official exoneration, or a consensus exists that the individual was unjustly punished or where a conviction has been quashed and no retrial has taken place, so that the accused is assumed innocent.


 * There is no character test; even if you dislike Roseanne Catt she still falls well within the criteria. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceauşescu execution in Romania
I removed the section describing the trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu during the Romanian Revolution of 1989. There seems, to me, to be a material difference between an arguably flawed legal process that resulted in the death of a pair of brutal dictators (who all but their most devout supporters would agree had blood on their hands) and a flawed process resulting in the mistaken conviction and imprisonment or execution of an ordinary person who simply did not do anything wrong at all. If there are independent, reliable sources that substantiate a claim that the Ceauşescus were innocent victims of a cynical coup, then by all means please present such sources as part of any reinstatement of this material. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say they were "innocent". All I have said is that nobody cared to prove them guilty, and the court acted illegally. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It was my impression that the purpose of this article was to list cases where the innocent have been punished — or the "obviously guilty" have been let off — because the system failed. Under that definition, cases like that of the Ceauşescus really don't belong (IMO).  Or am I assuming too narrow a definition here for "miscarriage of justice"?  Should the Miscarriage of justice article be broadened in its coverage?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In our countries, justice means "rule of law" and "state of law". This trial has held both in high contempt. It is not that the Ceauşescus were "clean". It is about a gang of putchists illegally killing others through a mockery of justice. In no other East-European country were its communist leaders sentenced to death, after the events of 1989. The Western press widely agreed that the trial was a Stalinist-style trial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As my teacher, prof. Kees Schuyt said, Western justice is not about Solomonic judgments, but about following proper procedures. It is procedural justice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides, nobody said that justice is only for the innocent. Even those presumed or proven guilty have to be treated justly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu has a sound argument. It's not as simple as listing all the "false positives" and all the "missed negatives". But then the hundreds of thousands who are imprisoned without ever having any trial are not included here - because the totalitarian regimes under which they suffer are not considered to have sound "judicial processes" at all. So it depends on whether or not the new regime in Romanian Revolution of 1989 could be considered to have "justice" or not. By Tgeorgescu's argument they should be ruled out as they were acting illegally. A bit of a paradox. But I know what he means. Moomin-in-a-Cleopatra-wig (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I still see a basic difference between the Ceauşescu case and the sorts of scenarios currently listed in the Miscarriage of justice article (upon which I would assume the list here is supposed to be based). I would feel more comfortable adding the Ceauşescus to this list if their case were, first, successfully added to (and survived a consensus process at) a new "Romania" section within Miscarriage of justice.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will add the text there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu appears to confuse Justice (fairness) with Law (procedure). There appears to be little doubt that the Ceaucescu's were tried by a "kangaroo" court that was not properly constituted, but there is also very little doubt that they were 'guilty as charged'. A Micarriage of Justice is clearly a case where the innocent are convicted, or the guilty acquitted, and neither of these circumstances appear correct in this case. Although it is impossible to know with any certainty, the real test is whether the Ceaucescu's would have been convicted by a properly constituted court. Another way of looking at it was that the Ceaucescu's were lynched, and on the basis of that, all lynchings would be classified as "miscarriages of justice". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.159.120 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

West Memphis Three
Do people feel the West Memphis Three should, or should not, be included in this list? They were just [ removed] from this page just now (and a "see also" link was also [ removed] at Miscarriage of justice). Rather than simply revert the removal, I'd like to get some feedback. Comments? Rich wales (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk
Some questions: Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Why is Demjanjuk listed under Israel and not under United States and or Germany?
 * 2. Why is so much space taken up by a subject who has his own article?
 * 3. Do all the events reported, but particularly those pertaining to the last trial, truly represent "miscarriage of justice"? - just because Demjanjuk lodged an appeal and died before it could be heard, does that make him innocent as well as "technically innocent under German law"?


 * I just took this junk out. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Florence Cassez
I have deleted Florence Cassez from this article because her case does not meet the stated criteria for inclusion. The criteria are: 1) a convicted individual was later found to be innocent of the crime 2) a consensus exists that the individual was unjustly punished 3) a conviction has been quashed and no retrial has taken place Cassez is still in prison so 1) and 3) do not apply, and her own article states, "Mexican public opinion is divided between those who say Cassez should remain in jail and those who proclaim her innocence and freedom", so a concensus does not exist and 2) does not apply either. Further, I would argue that using a concensus as a criteria is unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia are about the facts, not about representing the court of public opinion. The concensus of opinion is not a fact, nor is it verifiable in any source, both of which are rightly seen as bulwarks of Wikipedia's policies. The concensus of opinion is what encyclopedia's fight against, not submit meekly to.  Cottonshirt  τ   12:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lynching and Nat Turner
I have deleted both the lynching victims and Nat Turner from this article because they do not meet the stated criteria for inclusion. The criteria are: 1) a convicted individual was later found to be innocent of the crime 2) a consensus exists that the individual was unjustly punished 3) a conviction has been quashed and no retrial has taken place Victims of lynching are not victims of miscarriage of justice but victims of crimes. Sad and abhorrent as their cases are they do not belong in this article. Nat Turner was convicted of, "conspiring to rebel and making insurrection" and did by his own account murder, "Margret Whitehead, whom he killed with a blow from a fence post." The court has not overturned its verdict, he has not been found innocent and there is no concensus that he was anything other than rightly convicted for his crimes.  Cottonshirt  τ   13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Sam Sheppard, Rubin Carter and Carlos DeLuna
I strongly believe Dr. Sam Sheppard should not be on this list just because he was acquitted in a retrial. The evidence available points to his guilt even if it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also incorrect that this case inspired a TV series as this entry states. I'm not as familiar with Rubin Carter's case but should he be on this list? Finally, Carlos DeLuna has never been exonerated, so should he be listed in this article? Both the involved police department and the district attorney's office still insist DeLuna was guilty. More than a decade after DeLuna's execution, there was an investigation by the Chicago Tribune and another by anti-death penalty law professor James Liebman of the Columbia Law School with both raising serious questions about the man's guilt but that doesn't merit being on a miscarriage of justice list in my opinion. In the least, the wording needs to be changed with this entry which uses the Huffington Post as its source. I'd be interested in comments from other editors on these three cases.TL36 (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Taylor
The Taylor sisters should be removed from this list. Check out the book by Bernard O'Mahoney to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.159.154 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

victorian woman
I heard a bbc programme about a woman found guilty of poisoning her older husband. But it was shown he had been poisened earlier or he ws suffering from previous poisoning withdrawal

Gregory Bashirov: Accuracy of statement?

Is the comment that he appealed against his sentence correct? Surely it should read that "he appealed against his conviction" (or he appealled his conviction and sentence). Appealing against the sentence only would not normally pave the way for an exoneration/reversal of conviction.80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs sources, which are probably in foreign languages
"El crimen de Cuenca" is notable, a film was made about the events and it has a wikipedia article. Without question, it can be included on this article, however there are no sources listed in this article and only imdb is used as a source on the article about the movie. I have searched and cannot find any sources. I do not read Spanish, and am unable to find sources in English. If anyone can locate sources for this entry, please re-add this entry. Bali88 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

non-UK cases
The Nora Wall and Sallins Train Robbery cases are both Irish, within the Republic of Ireland, not the UK. Is there a particular reason they're in the UK list? KesterAnt (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I created a new section for Ireland and moved these two cases there. SylviaStanley (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - not legally exonerated?
In the list of miscarriage of justice cases for Italy, the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kerchner was overturned In 2015, when the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the previous guilty verdicts, ruling that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges. However, they are listed as not being legally exonerated in the field of that name.

I'm changing the value for "legally exonerated" for those cases to "yes", because the Italian court with jurisdiction in the case did, in fact, exonerate them legally. loupgarous (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)