Lessons from the American Innocence Projects

Abstract

This review essay examines recent trends in American wrongful conviction scholarship. Despite calls for a ‘criminology’ of wrongful conviction, narrative about actual cases remains important. The two books reviewed explore the ambiguities and challenges of innocence work by examining cases where the authors represented wrongfully convicted persons without DNA evidence. The books both critique restrictions on post-conviction relief in the American Federal Courts. These restrictions are assessed as examples of American ‘extra-legalism’ where a very complex legal system frequently produces unjust results and fails to provide redress and accountability for injustice. The role of equality and non-discrimination norms in wrongful convictions discourse are also assessed. Valena Beety’s call for a substantive and social justice approach focused on ‘manifest justice’ and fundamental reforms to the American criminal justice system is compared to Daniel Medwed’s more narrow focus on factual innocence. It is argued that Beety’s more ambitious approach is normatively superior and more easily applied outside the distinct context of American mass imprisonment and extra-legalism.