Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscarriage of justice cases


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice cases

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List with no possible NPOV criteria for entry. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Keep, all cases sourced, official recognition of judicial errors, no POV pushing. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The "NPOV criteria for entry" is surely any situation in which someone has received a prison term or equally harsh punishment for a crime of which they were later proved to be innocent.  I can't agree with a nomination on the basis Shadowjams cites, so keep.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing might be there, but so is the critical commentary and cherry-picking of cases to assert the point of the article. This reads more like a list of plot devices for bad 90's movie of the week topics than it does any serious examination of the subject.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable, verifiable, objective criterion, not indiscriminate. I don't know how Shadowjams can seriously contest that there are no possible NPOV criteria for entry. If someone would like to use the article's talk page to explain where the POV enters in terms of alleged cherry-picking of cases and POV pushing in the descriptions, this can be fixed - it's not an argument for deletion. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the concept of the page is fine, any problems can be improved with more rigorous vetting. NPOV is not an issue since a court's decision to overturn a conviction is pretty easy to verify. All people included should preferably have their own page - but the list can also prompt people to write article's about such people. Malick78 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced for the most part, and anything that isn't sourced can obviously be removed. If there's a POV being pushed I don't see what it is, nor do I see any evidence of "cherry picking" of cases; all the notable cases I'm aware of are included. JulesH (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Content from this list was moved here. Because this new article is considered for deletion, I restored the contents of the original article from where the material was moved out of. Unlike this article, the original article does define the criteria the list entries have to satify. So, I would be in favor of deleting this article provided the original article keeps the list, or we could keep this article, and include the definition of miscarriage of justice etc. as is done in the original article and then delete the lists in the original article. Count Iblis (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is to be kept, I think it's better as a separate list. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Assuming this is kept - and it looks like a fork with a worthy justification to me - perhaps a better title could be found?  Like list of false convictions of crime or something similar? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nothing wrong with that title, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the existing one, either. 'Miscarriage of justice' the usual term of art (or it may even be strictly defined; I'm not sure) for this class of event. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd even prefer Cases of miscarriage of justice, it just sounds less clunky to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the title is one of the central problems (discussed below). Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It might be possible to create a neutral criteria for inclusion if the term is defined narrowly enough. The parent article does this by saying it's a conviction of which the person did not commit. That criteria is not listed here and if it's adequate, it needs to be. However, even if it is listed, I think there are other problems.
 * Title gives the wrong impression - The title suggests a much broader set of criteria than the criteria given in the parent article. The name suggests and the parent article mentions non-criminal cases that can also be lumped under the topic. I cannot agree with AlexTiefling's confidence that the criteria for inclusion will fix the misconception given by a much broader title. Both the parent and the definition given here make no requirement that the conviction actually be overturned or judged on legally.
 * Absence of official ruling requirement leads to subjectivity - While a wrongful conviction is an easy include, much harder are the issues involved in pleas and technical errors. Defenses to crimes, like self-defense, create issues because it will require wikipedia editors to make a subjective legal judgment on an issue, particularly when the court has not formally exonerated the individual. (example)
 * Choosing criteria will involve devisive choices - Despite the exasperation, it is a real concern that choosing a criteria will be hard to do neutrally. Of course I don't suggest that someone cannot come up with a criteria that is fair or in good faith, but even the good ones given now bring up these issues and I don't think they've been resolved. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Shadowjams, I don't want to be a grammar Nzi here, but your above contribution is so badly written as to suggest willful obfuscation.
 * Could you kindly re-state your views, in an easily understood idiom? Thanks. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this response is a joke. Otherwise I resent the suggestion I'm hiding the ball. Read my bullet points alone and it explains my objections. Maybe it would be better as a list of WP:....Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: All the entries in the list are cases where people had been convicted and then the sentence was overturned and the person no longer faces the charges. E.g., if a high court overturns a sentence but then orders a retrial, then that does not count as a miscarriage. Only if the person is cleared in the retrial can such a case be included in the list. An example would be the case of Alan Beaman (included in the list as the first US entry of the year 2009). His sentence was overturned in 2008 and the case was sent back for retrial. The prosecutor initially did not drop the charges. A few days ago the prosecutor did drop the charges, so his case now counts as a miscarriage.


 * This criterium that we've been sticking to is thus biased because we don't include people who are very likely wrongfully convicted but are still in jail, no matter how strong the evidence for wrongful conviction is. Count Iblis (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is why miscarriage of justice is a problematic name for the article; because a miscarriage of justice can happen in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, where the reputedly wrong decision is made.  Many people think that O. J. Simpson's acquittal for murder was a "miscarriage of justice", and I'm sure that published sources can be found that call it that, but it isn't on the list.  The list seems to contain only people who were convicted of crimes and later exonerated.  That list has clear criteria for inclusion: but while "miscarriage of justice" may well describe such cases, it isn't specific enough.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While particulars cases may debatable and controversial, generally this list has clear inclusion criteria (either formal judicial overturn or wide general recognition of wrongfulness of conviction). I support rename to List of miscarriage of justice cases, to mark it clearly as an article subject to WP:LIST, and because the content is too exhaustive to be included in the Miscarriage of justice article ¨¨ victor   falk  09:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment List should be added to the name. Other names might be better. Maybe "List of wrongful convictions", or "List of overturned wrongful convictions". Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with some clear understanding of what should be included. I think it would be necessary to have Wikipedia articles on each, and to strengthen the criterion to that they have been released because of the acceptance by the courts (or the unambiguous statements of multiple absolutely RSs of their actual innocence, not technical reasons for overturning the verdict. (actually I think all or almost all of the cases here meet that requirement, but I do not think a single quote to a newspaper sufficient for this). A problem here is that there may be some resistance to Wikipedia having articles on some of these, because of the over-broad interpretation of ONE EVENT. {Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that such resistance would be absurd, given the appropriate public and press interest in these.) There is at least one case where the release is after a long period in jail awaiting trial, but without a conviction, (Raymond H. Jonassen), and I am not sure this fits the criteria either--there are probably many more such that never get widely reported.  I note the the listing of Sacco and Vanzetti is somewhat dubious--the article on them seems to be in the process of being rewritten to clarify the current views. It might be appropriate to have an article or section on people widely viewed as being wrongly convicted, where the matter remains unclear, or even where the conviction was in fact correct (as, probably, with Julius Rosenberg). DGG (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever criteria is chosen, it will have to decide how to deal with a few scenarios that will be controversial. Wikipedia is not the place to do OR about guilt or innocence. So we have to rely on objective, perhaps official criteria. That isn't as cut and dried as some of the previous users have assumed. Here are some examples of issues that will have to be accommodated (and these are not bizarre technical arguments, but real scenarios):
 * Pardons - An individual is convicted, but pardoned before appeals (or after all avenues are extinguished). A pardon is an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)), but as a practical matter it may be used for the innocent as well. Certainly not all pardons are miscarriage of justices, but some may be. If there's a pardon do we require another formal declaration of innocence from a court or another body?
 * Technicalities resulting in retrials or release - If a retrial is ordered, let's say for allegations of fraud by a witness, is the result of the retrial the formal declaration? What if the prosecution drops charges and so a retrial never results in an acquittal. Are prosecutors dropping charges sufficiently official acts? What if a later prosecutor brings those charges again (Southern while supremacist murders for example).
 * Dual verdicts - Double jeopardy doctrine permits the federal government and the state government to try an individual for the same act, even if they result in different verdicts. Are these cases (where the individual has been formally exonerated but is still in prison) worthy of inclusion?
 * Imprisonment without conviction - As DGG points out, what about individuals who are not convicted, but are held as a matter of course. Prisoners of war, enemy combatants, etc. If these individuals are released and factually innocent, but never declared to be exonerated by the government, are these cases included?
 * Pleas What if an innocent individual pleas to a lesser charge but is later understood to be innocent. Do they have to wait for an official pardon? (See pardon above for issues with this).
 * I think this debate has been a good one, and I appreciate everyone's sincerity. These are real issues that need to be decided, and this would be a good opportunity to do so. I believe that the issues I've just described are potentially fatal. Deciding any one of them either way will be controversial, and if it doesn't appear like that now, just wait until someone wants to put a close case on the list. If the list is to stay, these criteria need to be thoroughly understood now in advance. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I find this one difficult to decide. Obviously miscarriages of justice are notable by any definition, but how can this ever become a comprehensive, or if not that even a representative list. This is a case where WP:V and WP:NPOV collide. By including only verifiable cases we are excluding nearly all of the miscarriages of justice carried out by, for example, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, the Peoples Republic of China, the Pinochet regime in Chile etc, not to mention what went on before the last century. Because of the very nature of these regimes most miscarriages of justice haven't been reported by reliable sources, but by excluding the non-verifiable cases we are presenting a very unbalanced picture of where most miscarriages of justice have happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with fixes per DGG et al. Lots of legal articles have been controversial, e.g., Palestinian law, which was resolved with clean-up, redirect, and renaming. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.