International Journal of Law And Criminology
1
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue08 2025
PAGE NO.
1-11
Interconnected Failures: An Ecological Systems Analysis
of Wrongful Convictions in the U.S. Criminal Justice
System
Dr. Marcus D. Hollowell
Department of Criminology, University of California, Irvine, USA
Dr. Alicia N. Rosario
School of Social Work, Columbia University, USA
Received:
03 June 2025;
Accepted:
02 July 2025;
Published:
01 August 2025
Abstract:
This study applies an ecological systems theory framework to examine the complex, interconnected
factors contributing to wrongful convictions in the U.S. criminal justice system. Moving beyond isolated
explanations, the analysis considers multiple systemic levels
—
including individual, institutional, community, and
societal influences
—
that interact to produce judicial errors. Key elements such as police misconduct,
prosecutorial overreach, inadequate defense, systemic bias, and sociopolitical pressures are explored as part of a
broader ecosystem of failure. By situating wrongful convictions within this multidimensional context, the study
highlights the need for holistic reform strategies that address the structural and cultural dynamics underpinning
miscarriages of justice.
Keywords:
Wrongful convictions, U.S. criminal justice system, ecological systems theory, systemic failure, judicial
error, prosecutorial misconduct, structural injustice, legal reform, mass incarceration, institutional bias.
Introduction:
The integrity of any criminal justice
system hinges on its capacity to accurately identify and
justly punish the guilty while safeguarding the
innocent. However, the phenomenon of wrongful
convictions
—
where an individual is found guilty of a
crime they did not commit
—
represents a profound
failure of this fundamental principle, undermining
public trust and inflicting devastating consequences on
individuals, families, and communities [15, 33]. While
the exact prevalence of wrongful convictions remains
challenging to quantify, estimates suggest that they are
far from rare, with some studies indicating that
between 2% and 10% of felony convictions may be
erroneous [17, 19, 60]. Since 1989, over 3,400
exonerations have been recorded in the United States,
revealing a persistent and systemic issue within the
justice system [38].
The recognition and documentation of wrongful
convictions have gained significant momentum,
particularly with the advent of DNA testing in the late
20th century [9, 56, 58, 59]. The first DNA exoneration
in the U.S. involved Gary Dotson in 1989, a landmark
case that vividly demonstrated the fallibility of
traditional evidence and ignited the "Innocence
Movement" [3, 8, 36, 43]. This movement, comprising
legal clinics, advocacy groups, and researchers, has
systematically identified and analyzed the common
contributing factors to these miscarriages of justice,
including
eyewitness
misidentification,
false
confessions, flawed forensic science, and prosecutorial
misconduct [15, 39, 40].
While these individual factors are well-documented, a
comprehensive understanding of wrongful convictions
necessitates a framework that acknowledges their
interconnectedness and the systemic nature of their
origins.
This
article
proposes
applying
Urie
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory as an
analytical lens to examine wrongful convictions within
the U.S. criminal justice system [5, 6]. Bronfenbrenner's
theory posits that human development is influenced by
International Journal of Law And Criminology
2
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
multiple layers of interacting environmental systems:
the
microsystem
(immediate
environment),
mesosystem (interactions between microsystems),
exosystem (indirect influences), macrosystem (broader
cultural values and ideologies), and chronosystem
(changes over time) [5, 6].
By adopting an ecological perspective, this study aims
to move beyond a simplistic enumeration of causes to
explore how failures at various systemic levels interact
and compound, creating a fertile ground for erroneous
convictions. The purpose is to demonstrate that
wrongful convictions are not merely isolated incidents
attributable to single errors but rather emergent
properties of a complex, interconnected criminal
justice ecosystem. This approach will illuminate the
systemic vulnerabilities, cognitive biases, and societal
pressures that contribute to these profound injustices,
offering a more holistic understanding that can inform
more effective and comprehensive reform efforts.
METHODS
This study employs a qualitative, conceptual analysis
methodology,
utilizing
Urie
Bronfenbrenner's
ecological systems theory as the primary analytical
framework to understand the multifaceted nature of
wrongful convictions within the U.S. criminal justice
system. This approach allows for a systematic
categorization and interpretation of the various
contributing factors identified in existing literature,
demonstrating
their
interconnectedness
across
different systemic levels.
2.1. Research Design
The research design is a theoretical application and
synthesis. It does not involve new empirical data
collection but rather re-interprets and organizes
existing knowledge about wrongful convictions
through a novel theoretical lens. The aim is to provide
a comprehensive, multi-layered understanding of how
these injustices occur, moving beyond a simple list of
causes to illustrate their ecological origins.
2.2. Data Sources
The "data" for this study consists of a comprehensive
div of scholarly literature, legal analyses, official
reports, and historical accounts related to wrongful
convictions in the United States. Specifically, the
following types of sources were systematically
reviewed:
•
Academic Journal Articles: Peer-reviewed
research from fields such as criminology, law,
psychology, and forensic science that identify causes,
prevalence, and impacts of wrongful convictions [1, 7,
10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
41, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60].
•
Legal Reviews and Books: Foundational texts
and contemporary analyses of legal processes, case
studies, and systemic issues contributing to
miscarriages of justice [4, 13, 15, 16, 26, 32, 34, 35, 43,
44, 45].
•
Reports
from
Innocence
Organizations:
Publications from entities like the National Registry of
Exonerations (NRE) and the Innocence Project, which
compile data on exonerations and identify contributing
factors [18, 20, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. These reports often
provide crucial statistics and case examples.
•
Government
Reports:
Documents
from
agencies such as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) that address wrongful convictions,
forensic science, and criminal justice reform [33, 34, 35,
51].
•
Historical Accounts: Works detailing the history
of wrongful convictions and the evolution of the
innocence movement [4, 43].
All references provided by the user were meticulously
incorporated and cited within the relevant sections of
the article.
2.3. Analytical Framework: Bronfenbrenner's Ecological
Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory [5, 6]
provides a multi-layered framework for analyzing the
contributing factors to wrongful convictions:
•
Microsystem: This level encompasses the
immediate environments in which an individual directly
interacts with others and evidence. In the context of
wrongful convictions, this includes:
o
Police interrogations (leading to false
confessions) [32, 45].
o
Eyewitness identification procedures [24].
o
Forensic laboratory analysis [10, 28].
o
Trial proceedings (e.g., jury decision-making,
informant testimony) [41].
o
Individual cognitive biases of actors (police,
witnesses, forensic analysts) [10, 11, 28, 49].
•
Mesosystem: This level refers to the
interactions and interconnections between two or
more microsystems. For wrongful convictions, this
involves:
o
The relationship between police investigators
and prosecutors (e.g., information sharing, pressure to
secure convictions) [14].
o
The interface between forensic scientists and
legal actors (e.g., communication of scientific
limitations, pressure to align findings with investigative
International Journal of Law And Criminology
3
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
theories) [10, 28, 34, 35].
o
The interplay between eyewitnesses and
police/prosecutors (e.g., suggestive questioning,
confirmation bias affecting identification) [24].
•
Exosystem: This level comprises external
systems that indirectly influence the individual and the
immediate justice processes. These are systems in
which the individual does not directly participate but
which affect their microsystems. In this context, it
includes:
o
Media influence and public opinion (shaping
perceptions of crime and justice, creating pressure for
convictions) [7, 46, 53].
o
Institutional policies and resource allocation
(e.g., funding for public defense, police training,
forensic lab resources) [25, 29].
o
Political pressures on law enforcement and
prosecutors to maintain high conviction rates or
address specific crime trends [25, 29].
•
Macrosystem: This is the broadest level,
encompassing the overarching cultural values, beliefs,
laws, and ideologies of the society. For wrongful
convictions, this includes:
o
Systemic racial bias and discrimination
embedded within legal structures and societal norms
[23, 50, 54, 55].
o
The adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal
justice system and its emphasis on winning cases [14].
o
Dominant "tough on crime" or punitive justice
ideologies that prioritize conviction over due process
[27, 53].
o
The "system justification" tendency, where
individuals are motivated to defend the legitimacy of
existing social systems, even when faced with evidence
of injustice [27, 53].
•
Chronosystem: This dimension refers to the
patterning of environmental events and transitions
over the life course, as well as socio-historical
circumstances. In the context of wrongful convictions,
it includes:
o
The emergence and evolution of forensic
science (e.g., DNA technology) and its impact on post-
conviction relief [9, 36, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59].
o
The rise and growth of the Innocence
Movement and its influence on legal reforms and public
awareness [13, 25, 29, 43].
o
Shifts in legal policy, public opinion, and
scientific understanding over time that affect how
justice is administered and miscarriages are addressed.
2.4. Data Analysis
The analysis involved a systematic thematic
categorization of the identified causes of wrongful
convictions within the U.S. criminal justice system. Each
contributing factor, as documented in the reviewed
literature, was assigned to one or more levels of
Bronfenbrenner's ecological model. The process
involved:
1.
Identification
of
Contributing
Factors:
Extracting all identified causes of wrongful convictions
from the reviewed sources (e.g., eyewitness
misidentification, false confessions, forensic error,
prosecutorial misconduct).
2.
Categorization by Ecological Level: Assigning
each factor to its primary ecological level (microsystem,
mesosystem,
exosystem,
macrosystem,
chronosystem), while acknowledging that many factors
span multiple levels.
3.
Elaboration and Interconnection: Detailing
how each factor operates within its respective system
and, crucially, how factors across different systems
interact and compound to produce wrongful outcomes.
4.
Integration
of
Statistics:
Incorporating
concrete numbers and racial statistics from the
National Registry of Exonerations and other relevant
sources
to
quantify
the
prevalence
and
disproportionate impact of certain factors on specific
demographic groups.
This analytical approach allows for a holistic
understanding of wrongful convictions as products of a
complex interplay of individual actions, interpersonal
dynamics, institutional structures, and societal values,
rather than isolated errors.
RESULTS
The application of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems
theory reveals that wrongful convictions in the U.S.
criminal justice system are not isolated anomalies but
rather emergent properties of interconnected failures
across multiple systemic levels. The analysis of existing
literature highlights how factors at the microsystem,
mesosystem,
exosystem,
macrosystem,
and
chronosystem levels interact and compound, creating
vulnerabilities that lead to miscarriages of justice.
3.1. Overview of Wrongful Convictions and
Contributing Factors
The National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) provides
the most comprehensive data on wrongful convictions
in the United States. As of early 2024, the NRE has
documented over 3,400 exonerations since 1989 [38].
These cases represent individuals who were wrongly
convicted of crimes and later cleared of all charges. The
NRE identifies several leading contributing factors to
these exonerations, often with multiple factors present
International Journal of Law And Criminology
4
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
in a single case [40].
•
Eyewitness Misidentification: This is the most
common contributing factor, present in approximately
63% of DNA exonerations [40].
•
False Confessions: These occur in about 28% of
DNA exonerations [40].
•
Perjury or False Accusation: This factor is
present in 57% of all exonerations [40].
•
Official Misconduct: This includes misconduct
by police, prosecutors, or other government actors,
present in 54% of all exonerations [40].
•
Flawed
Forensic
Science:
This
factor
contributes to approximately 24% of DNA exonerations
[40].
•
Informants/Snitches: Testimony from these
unreliable sources contributes to about 16% of DNA
exonerations [40].
3.2. Microsystem Failures: Individual and Immediate
Interactions
At the microsystem level, errors and biases within
immediate interactions and individual cognitive
processes significantly contribute to wrongful
convictions.
•
Eyewitness Misidentification: Despite its
prevalence, eyewitness testimony is notoriously
fallible. Factors such as poor lighting, stress, cross-racial
identification, and suggestive police procedures can
lead to erroneous identifications [24]. Research by
Hasel and Kassin (2009) demonstrates how confessions
can "corrupt" eyewitness identifications, showing how
information from one microsystem (interrogation) can
contaminate another (eyewitness memory) [24].
•
False Confessions: Individuals, particularly
juveniles, those with intellectual disabilities, or those
under duress, can be coerced or manipulated into
confessing to crimes they did not commit [32, 45]. Leo
and Davis (2010) identify seven psychological processes
that can lead from false confession to wrongful
conviction, including police interrogation tactics,
confirmation bias, and cognitive biases on the part of
investigators [32]. Vick, Cook, and Rogers (2021)
highlight the particularly dangerous phenomenon of
"lethal leverage," where false confessions and pleas
contribute to wrongful homicide convictions in death-
eligible cases [57].
•
Flawed Forensic Science: While forensic
science is often perceived as infallible, errors and even
misconduct occur. This can involve misinterpretation of
evidence, overstating the certainty of findings, or using
unvalidated scientific methods [34, 35, 47]. The
President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) (2016) has raised serious concerns
about the scientific validity of several feature-
comparison methods [34]. Dror, Charlton, and Péron
(2006) demonstrate how contextual information can
render forensic experts vulnerable to making
erroneous identifications, illustrating a cognitive bias at
the individual level [10]. Morgan (2024) provides a
current overview of forensic science improvement
efforts, acknowledging past failures [33].
•
Informant Testimony: Jailhouse informants
and other incentivized witnesses often provide
unreliable or fabricated testimony in exchange for
leniency or other benefits, directly contributing to
wrongful convictions [41]. Neuschatz et al. (2008)
illustrate the significant impact of such witnesses on
jury decision-making [41].
•
Cognitive Biases: Individual actors within the
microsystem (police, prosecutors, judges, jurors,
forensic analysts) are susceptible to cognitive biases
such as confirmation bias (the tendency to seek,
interpret, and remember information in a way that
confirms one's pre-existing beliefs) [28, 29, 42, 49, 61].
This bias can lead investigators to focus solely on
evidence that implicates a suspect while ignoring
exculpatory evidence [14].
3.3. Mesosystem Failures: Inter-Agency Interactions
and Information Flow
Failures at the mesosystem level arise from
problematic interactions and information flow
between different components of the criminal justice
system.
•
Tunnel Vision: This phenomenon, described by
Findley and Scott (2006), involves the "single-minded
focus on a particular suspect or theory of a crime that
leads to the exclusion of other possibilities" [14]. It is a
mesosystem issue because it often involves the
collaboration of police and prosecutors, where initial
biases in investigation are reinforced by prosecutorial
strategies, leading to a narrow focus that overlooks
alternative suspects or exculpatory evidence [14, 29].
Rossmo (2016) offers a protocol for "case rethinking"
to combat such biases [52].
•
Forensic Confirmation Bias: This occurs when
contextual information from law enforcement
influences a forensic examiner's interpretation of
evidence [28, 49]. Dror et al. (2006) showed how
fingerprint examiners' decisions could be swayed by
irrelevant contextual information [10]. This highlights a
dangerous interaction between the investigative
microsystem and the forensic microsystem.
•
Prosecutorial Misconduct: While often an
individual act, prosecutorial misconduct (e.g.,
International Journal of Law And Criminology
5
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
withholding exculpatory evidence, presenting false
evidence) is frequently facilitated by the mesosystem's
dynamics, where the adversarial pressure to win cases
can override ethical obligations [15]. The NRE reports
that official misconduct, which includes prosecutorial
misconduct, is a contributing factor in 54% of all
exonerations [40].
3.4. Exosystem Failures: Indirect Systemic Influences
The exosystem encompasses external factors that
indirectly influence the criminal justice process, often
shaping the environment in which microsystem and
mesosystem interactions occur.
•
Public Opinion and Media Influence: Public
demand for "tough on crime" policies and rapid
convictions, often fueled by sensationalized media
coverage, can exert pressure on law enforcement and
prosecutors [7, 46]. Burstein (2003) discusses the
impact of public opinion on public policy, a dynamic
that extends to criminal justice [7]. Ermasova et al.
(2024) explore how public perceptions, including those
of law enforcement professionals, influence views on
wrongful convictions and needed reforms [12].
•
Resource Disparities: Underfunded public
defense systems, compared to well-resourced
prosecution offices, can create an imbalance that
disadvantages defendants, increasing the likelihood of
wrongful convictions [15]. The allocation of resources
to forensic labs, police training, and investigative
technologies also indirectly impacts the quality of
evidence and investigations.
•
Political Pressure: Elected officials (e.g., district
attorneys, sheriffs) may face political pressure to
maintain high conviction rates or to secure convictions
in high-profile cases, potentially leading to shortcuts or
an overzealous pursuit of a particular suspect [25, 29].
Hicks, Mullinix, and Norris (2021) analyze how partisan
politics and advocacy efforts influence wrongful
conviction legislation at the state level [25].
3.5. Macrosystem Failures: Broad Societal Values and
Ideologies
The macrosystem represents the overarching cultural
values, laws, and ideologies that shape the entire
criminal justice system, often contributing to systemic
vulnerabilities.
•
Systemic Racial Bias: This is a pervasive
macrosystem factor that disproportionately affects
certain groups. The NRE data reveal stark racial
disparities:
o
African Americans constitute 52% of all
exonerees, despite making up only 13% of the U.S.
population [38].
o
African Americans are seven times more likely
to be wrongly convicted of murder than white people.
For sexual assault, they are 3.5 times more likely to be
wrongly convicted [38].
o
This disparity is particularly pronounced in drug
crimes, where African Americans are 12 times more
likely to be wrongly convicted than white people, often
due to false accusations by police informants [38].
o
Harmon (2004) specifically analyzed the role of
race in erroneous capital convictions, finding significant
racial disparities [23].
o
Richardson (2017) discusses "systemic triage"
and implicit racial bias within the criminal courtroom,
illustrating how racial bias can permeate decision-
making at various stages [50].
o
Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer (1998) and
Steffensmeier, Painter-Davis, and Ulmer (2017) have
extensively documented how the intersectionality of
race, gender, and age influences criminal sentencing,
suggesting broader systemic biases within the justice
system [54, 55].
•
Adversarial System Philosophy: The U.S.
criminal justice system is fundamentally adversarial,
pitting prosecution against defense. While designed to
uncover truth, this system can incentivize "winning"
over justice, potentially leading to the suppression of
exculpatory evidence or aggressive interrogation
tactics [14, 26].
•
Punitive Justice Ideology: A societal emphasis
on punishment and retribution, often fueled by "tough
on crime" rhetoric, can create a climate where
conviction rates are prioritized over meticulous
investigation and due process. This ideology can lead to
a presumption of guilt and a reluctance to acknowledge
error [27, 53]. Sohoni, Snell, and Harden (2021) explore
how media portrayals of crime can contribute to
"system justification," where individuals defend the
existing system even in the face of flaws [53].
3.6. Chronosystem Factors: The Influence of Time and
Change
The chronosystem highlights how historical context
and evolving circumstances impact the occurrence and
detection of wrongful convictions.
•
Emergence of DNA Technology: The discovery
of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) by Miescher in 1869 [9,
59] and its structure elucidated by Watson and Crick in
1953 [58] laid the groundwork for forensic DNA
analysis. The first DNA exoneration in 1989 (Gary
Dotson) [3, 8, 36] marked a turning point, revealing the
widespread problem of wrongful convictions and
providing a powerful tool for post-conviction relief [51].
DNA testing has been instrumental in 24% of all
exonerations [40].
International Journal of Law And Criminology
6
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
•
Growth of the Innocence Movement: The
Innocence Movement, catalyzed by DNA exonerations,
has grown significantly over time, becoming a powerful
force for reform [13, 43]. This movement has brought
increased public awareness [7], advocated for
legislative changes (e.g., compensation laws for
exonerees) [25, 29], and established a robust
infrastructure for identifying and investigating
wrongful convictions [37, 38].
•
Shifts
in
Legal
Policy
and
Scientific
Understanding: Over time, legal policies regarding
eyewitness identification, interrogation techniques,
and forensic science standards have evolved in
response to growing awareness of wrongful convictions
[34, 35]. This ongoing adaptation reflects a
chronosystemic response to identified systemic
failures.
In sum, wrongful convictions are not merely random
occurrences but are deeply embedded within the fabric
of the U.S. criminal justice system. They arise from a
complex interplay of individual cognitive biases
(microsystem), dysfunctional inter-agency dynamics
(mesosystem), external pressures and resource
disparities (exosystem), deeply ingrained societal
values and systemic biases (macrosystem), and
historical developments that both contribute to and
reveal these injustices (chronosystem).
DISCUSSION
The application of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems
theory provides a robust and comprehensive
framework for understanding wrongful convictions in
the U.S. criminal justice system. This analysis moves
beyond a simple enumeration of contributing factors to
illustrate how these miscarriages of justice are the
product of complex interactions across multiple,
interconnected
systemic
levels.
The
findings
underscore that wrongful convictions are not isolated
errors but rather systemic failures, deeply embedded
within the structure and operation of the justice
system.
4.1. The Interconnectedness of Systemic Failures
The ecological model vividly demonstrates that factors
contributing to wrongful convictions rarely operate in
isolation. Instead, errors and biases at the microsystem
level (e.g., faulty eyewitness identification, false
confessions, forensic error) are often exacerbated and
perpetuated by mesosystem dynamics (e.g., tunnel
vision, confirmation bias across agencies, prosecutorial
misconduct) [10, 14, 28, 29, 49]. These inter-agency
failures, in turn, are influenced by exosystemic
pressures (e.g., media sensationalism, political
demands for high conviction rates, resource
limitations) [7, 25, 46]. At the broadest level,
macrosystemic factors, such as systemic racial bias and
a punitive justice ideology, create a fertile ground for
these vulnerabilities to manifest, disproportionately
affecting certain populations [23, 38, 50]. Finally, the
chronosystem highlights how historical developments,
such as the emergence of DNA technology, have both
revealed the extent of the problem and provided tools
for addressing it [3, 51].
For example, a false confession (microsystem) might be
obtained through coercive interrogation tactics. This
false confession then fuels tunnel vision among
investigators and prosecutors (mesosystem), leading
them to ignore exculpatory evidence. This process can
be intensified by public pressure for a quick conviction
(exosystem) in a high-profile case, and ultimately,
systemic racial biases (macrosystem) can make certain
defendants more vulnerable to such outcomes [15, 32,
50]. The ecological perspective thus emphasizes that
effective reform requires a multi-pronged approach
that addresses vulnerabilities at every level of the
system, rather than focusing on isolated fixes.
4.2. Addressing Systemic Racial Disparities
A particularly critical finding illuminated by the
macrosystem
analysis
is
the
pervasive
and
disproportionate impact of wrongful convictions on
racial minorities, especially African Americans. The
stark statistics from the National Registry of
Exonerations
—
showing African Americans as 52% of all
exonerees and significantly more likely to be wrongly
convicted of serious crimes like murder and sexual
assault
—
reveal a profound systemic injustice [38]. This
is not merely an unfortunate outcome but a reflection
of deeply ingrained biases within the criminal justice
system, from policing practices to prosecutorial
decisions and jury selection [23, 50, 54, 55].
Addressing this requires more than just individual
training on implicit bias; it necessitates systemic
reforms that dismantle discriminatory practices and
challenge the underlying ideologies that perpetuate
racial disparities. This includes re-evaluating policies
that disproportionately target minority communities,
ensuring equitable access to legal representation, and
actively combating racial bias at every stage of the
criminal justice process. The "system justification"
theory [27, 53] suggests that public and institutional
reluctance to acknowledge these disparities is a
significant barrier to reform, making public education
and advocacy crucial.
4.3. Implications for Reform and Prevention
The ecological understanding of wrongful convictions
offers clear implications for comprehensive reform
efforts:
International Journal of Law And Criminology
7
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
•
Microsystem Reforms: Focus on improving the
reliability of evidence. This includes implementing best
practices for eyewitness identification (e.g., blind
administration, sequential lineups) [24], recording all
custodial interrogations to prevent false confessions
[32, 45], and establishing rigorous scientific standards
and independent oversight for forensic laboratories
[34, 35, 33]. Training to mitigate cognitive biases like
confirmation bias among all actors is also essential [28,
49].
•
Mesosystem Reforms: Enhance inter-agency
communication and accountability to combat tunnel
vision and prosecutorial misconduct. This involves
fostering a culture of open information sharing,
implementing robust discovery rules, and establishing
independent review mechanisms for questionable
convictions [14, 15]. Rossmo (2016) suggests a "case
rethinking"
protocol to
systematically
review
investigations and identify potential biases [52].
•
Exosystem Reforms: Educate the public and
policymakers about the causes and prevalence of
wrongful convictions to reduce undue pressure for
convictions and foster support for reforms. This
includes advocating for adequate funding for public
defense services, which are critical for ensuring fair
trials [15]. Legislation for compensation for exonerees
is also a vital exosystemic response [25, 29].
•
Macrosystem
Reforms:
Challenge
and
dismantle systemic racial biases within the criminal
justice system through policy changes, implicit bias
training, and addressing the root causes of racial
disparities in arrests and sentencing [50, 54, 55]. Re-
evaluate punitive justice ideologies to prioritize truth-
seeking and due process over conviction rates [27].
•
Chronosystemic Adaptations: Continue to
invest in and integrate advanced forensic technologies
like DNA analysis for both initial investigations and
post-conviction review [51]. Sustain and expand the
vital work of innocence organizations, which play a
crucial role in identifying and exonerating the wrongly
convicted and advocating for systemic change [13, 37,
38, 43].
4.4. Limitations and Future Research
As a conceptual analysis, this study's primary limitation
is its reliance on existing literature rather than new
empirical data. While it synthesizes strong theoretical
arguments and draws insights from various studies, it
does not provide direct empirical evidence of the
effectiveness of specific reform interventions. The
inherent difficulty in precisely quantifying the true
prevalence of wrongful convictions also remains a
challenge [17, 19, 60].
Future research should focus on:
•
Empirical Studies of Interventions: Conduct
rigorous empirical evaluations of specific reforms
implemented at different ecological levels to assess
their effectiveness in reducing wrongful convictions.
•
Longitudinal Analyses: Track the long-term
impact of legislative changes and policy shifts on
wrongful conviction rates and contributing factors.
•
Comparative Justice Systems: Compare the
prevalence and causes of wrongful convictions in the
U.S. with those in other adversarial and inquisitorial
justice systems to identify universal and context-
specific vulnerabilities.
•
Qualitative
Research: Conduct
in-depth
qualitative studies (e.g., interviews with exonerees,
legal professionals, and policymakers) to gain nuanced
insights into the lived experiences of wrongful
conviction and the systemic factors involved.
•
Public Perception Studies: Further investigate
public and professional perceptions of wrongful
convictions and the factors that influence support for
reform [12].
CONCLUSION
Wrongful convictions represent a profound moral and
systemic failing within the U.S. criminal justice system.
By applying Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems
theory, this study demonstrates that these
miscarriages of justice are not random occurrences but
are deeply rooted in a complex interplay of individual
errors, inter-agency dynamics, external pressures, and
pervasive societal ideologies, including systemic racial
bias. Failures at the microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem levels interact and
compound over time (chronosystem), creating a
vulnerable ecosystem ripe for injustice.
The disproportionate impact on racial minorities,
particularly African Americans, underscores the urgent
need for justice system reform that is not only
evidence-based but also equity-driven. True prevention
of wrongful convictions requires a holistic, multi-level
approach that addresses the fallibility of evidence,
mitigates cognitive biases, promotes inter-agency
accountability, challenges punitive ideologies, and
actively dismantles systemic discrimination. The
ongoing work of the Innocence Movement, coupled
with advancements in forensic science, offers a beacon
of hope, but sustained vigilance and a collective
commitment to justice at every level of the ecological
system are essential to safeguard the innocent and
ensure the integrity of the criminal justice process.
REFERENCES
International Journal of Law And Criminology
8
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages
of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law
Review,
40(1),
21
–
179.
https://images.procon.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/45/hugobedaumichalerede
let.pdf
Blackerby, J. C. (2003). Life after death row:
Preventing wrongful capital convictions and
restoring innocence after exoneration. Vanderbilt
Law
Review,
56(4),
1226.
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewco
ntent.cgi?article=1762&context=vl
Bluhm Legal Clinic Northwestern Pritzker School of
Law. (2024). First DNA exoneration. Northwestern
Pritzker
Law.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wr
ongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/gary-
dotson.html
Borchard, E. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Sixty-
five actual errors of criminal justice. Garden City
Publishing Company.
Bronfenbrenner,
U.
(1977).
Toward
an
experimental ecology of human development.
American
Psychologist,
32(7),
513
–
531.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on
public policy: A review and an agenda. Political
Research
Quarterly,
56(1),
29
–
40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129030560010
Chicago Tribune. (1989). State dismisses Dotson
rape
case.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/1989/08/15/sta
te-dismisses-dotson-rape-case/
Dahm, R. (2008). Discovering DNA: Friedrich
Miescher and the early years of nucleic acid
research. Human Genetics, 122(6), 565
–
581.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-007-0433-0
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006).
Contextual information renders experts vulnerable
to making erroneous identifications. Forensic
Science
International,
156(1),
74
–
78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The
effects of prior expectations and outcome
knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 279
–
292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070405
Ermasova, N., Ceka, E., Adams, A., & Jackson, L.
(2024). Perceptions toward wrongful convictions
and needed reforms in the criminal justice system:
Does working experience in law enforcement
matter? Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice &
Criminology.
Pre-Issue
Pubs,
1
–
34.
https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.8db4cc4e
Findley, K. A. (2008). Toward a new paradigm of
criminal justice: How the innocence movement
merges crime control and due process. Texas Tech
Law
Review,
41,
133
–
173.
http://www.antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Findley
_2009.pdf
Findley, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple
dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases.
Wisconsin
Law
Review,
2,
291
–
397.
https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/hyjb3/findley_scot
t_final.pdf
Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent:
Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard
University Press.
Gould, J. B., Carrano, J., Leo, R., & Young, J. (2013).
Predicting erroneous convictions: A social science
approach to miscarriages of justice (Report No. NCJ
241389). Final report to the National Institute of
Justice,
grant
number
2009-IJ-CX-4110.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.
pdf
Gross, S. R. (2017). What we think, what we know
and what we think we know about false conviction.
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14(753), 753
–
786.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=2882&context=articles
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J.,
Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in
the United States 1989 through. Journal of Criminal
Law
&
Criminology,
95(2),
523
–
560.
https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/files/reso
urces/innocence/exonerationsgrossarticle.pdf
Gross, S. R., & O’Brien, B. (2008). Frequenc
y and
predictors of false conviction: Why we know so
little, and new data on capital cases. Journal of
Empirical
Legal
Studies,
5(4),
927
–
962.
International Journal of Law And Criminology
9
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
Gross, S. R., & Schaffer, M. (2012). Exonerations in
the United States, 1989
–
2012: Report by the
National Registry of Exonerations. University of
Michigan Law School.
Harmon, T. (2001a). Predictors of miscarriages of
justice in capital cases. Justice Quarterly, 18(4),
949
–
968.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095141
Harmon, T. (2001b). Guilty until proven innocent:
An analysis of post-Furman capital errors. Criminal
Justice
Policy
Review,
12(2),
113
–
139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403401012002002
Harmon, T. (2004). Race for your life: An analysis of
the role of race in erroneous capital convictions.
Criminal
Justice
Review,
29(1),
76
–
96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680402900
Hasel, L., & Kassin, S. (2009). On the presumption
of evidentiary independence: Can confessions
corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological
Science,
20(1),
122
–
126.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02262.x
Hicks, W. D., Mullinix, K. J., & Norris, R. J. (2021).
The politics of wrongful conviction legislation. State
Politics & Policy Quarterly, 21(3), 306
–
325.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies
of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.).
Houghton Mifflin.
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of
system justification and the palliative function of
ideology. European Review of Social Psychology,
13(1),
111
–
153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046
Kassin, S., Dror, I., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The
forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives,
and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42
–
52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Kent, S. L., & Carmichael, J. T. (2015). Legislative
responses to wrongful conviction: Do partisan
principals and advocacy efforts influence state-
level criminal justice policy? Social Science
Research,
52,
147
–
160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.01.004
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation,
disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis
testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211
–
228.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
Leo, R. A. (2005). Rethinking the study of
miscarriages of justice: Developing a criminology of
wrongful conviction. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal
Justice,
21(3),
201
–
223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205277477
Leo, R., & Davis, D. (2010). From false confession to
wrongful
conviction:
Seven
psychological
processes. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1
–
2), 9
–
56.
Lofquist, W. S. (2014). Finding the causes in the
contexts:
Structural
sources
of
wrongful
convictions. In A. D. Redlich, J. R. Acker, R. J. Norris,
& C. L. Bonventre (Eds.), Examining wrongful
convictions: Stepping back, moving forward (pp.
19
–
34). Carolina Academic Press.
Morgan, J. S. (2024). Current state of forensic
science improvement in the United States: Lessons
from wrongful convictions. Forensic Science
Review,
36(1),
41
–
54.
http://forensicsciencereview.com/Abstract/36(1)-
2%20(web).pdf
National Institute of Justice. (2023). Wrongful
convictions: The literature, the issues, and the
unheard voices. U.S. Department of Justice.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251446.pdf
National Institute of Justice. (2024). Wrongful
convictions.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-
system-reform/wrongful-convictions
National Registry of Exonerations. (2012). Gary
Dotson
–
National registry of exonerations.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2023). 2022
Annual Report.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2024). Glossary.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2024). Percent
of exonerations by contributing factor.
Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K.,
Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The
effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse
informants on jury decision making. Law and
Human
Behavior,
32(2),
137
–
149.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A
ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of
International Journal of Law And Criminology
10
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
General
Psychology,
2(2),
175
–
220.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Norris, R. J. (2017). Exonerated: A history of the
innocence movement. NYU Press.
O’Brien, B., & Findley, K. (2017). Psychological
perspectives: Cognition and decision making. In A.
D. Redlich, J. R. Acker, R. J. Norris, & C. L. Bonventre
(Eds.), Examining wrongful convictions: Stepping
back, moving forward (pp. 35
–
53). Carolina
Academic Press.
Ofshe, R., & Leo, R. (1997). The social psychology of
police interrogation: The theory and classification
of true and false confessions. Studies in Law Politics
and
Society,
16(4),
189
–
254.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract
_id=1141368
Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal
justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review
of
Criminology,
2(1),
405
–
428.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-
011518-024826
Plummer, C. M., & Syed, I. J. (2012). Shifted science
and post-conviction relief. Stanford Journal of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, 8(2), 259
–
298.
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/jm472mb
8525
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology. (2016). Report to the President:
Forensic science in criminal courts, ensuring
scientific validity of feature comparison methods.
Rassin, E. (2020). Context effect and confirmation
bias in criminal fact finding. Legal and
Criminological
Psychology,
25(2),
80
–
89.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12172
Rich, A &., & Zhang, S. (2003). Z-DNA: The long road
to biological function. Nature Reviews Genetics,
4(7), 566
–
572.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1115
Richardson, L. S. (2017). Systemic triage: Implicit
racial bias in the criminal courtroom. Yale Law
Journal,
126(3),
862
–
893.
Roman, J., Walsh, K., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J.
(2012). Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Wrongful
Conviction. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Contract No.
2008F-08165.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251446.pdf
Rossmo, D. K. (2016). Case rethinking: A protocol
for reviewing criminal investigations. Police
Practice
and
Research,
17(3),
212
–
228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2014.978320
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the
structure of the environment. Psychological
Review,
63(2),
129
–
138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
Sohoni, T., Snell, J., & Harden, E. (2021). He was
drugged up on something…” Portrayals of drugs
and violence on crime scene investigation (CSI) as
system justification. Journal of Drug Issues, 51(4),
690
–
710.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220426211034404
Steffensmeier, D., Painter-Davis, N., & Ulmer, J.
(2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender,
and age on criminal punishment. Sociological
Perspectives,
60(4),
810
–
833.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416679371
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998).
The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal
sentencing: The punishment cost of being young,
black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763
–
798.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
9125.1998.tb01265.x
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(2023).
Ecological
condition.
EPA.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www
.epa.gov/report-environment/ecological-
condition%23:~:text%3DAn%2520%25E2%2580%2
59Cecological%2520system%25E2%2580%259D%
2520(ecosystem,with%2520which%2520the%252
0organisms%2520interact](https://www.google.c
om/search?q=https://www.epa.gov/report-
environment/ecological-
condition%23:~:text%3DAn%2520%25E2%2580%2
59Cecological%2520system%25E2%2580%259D%
2520(ecosystem,with%2520which%2520the%252
0organisms%2520interact)
United States v. Garsson. (1923). 291 F. 646, 649
(S.D.NY).
University of West Florida Online. (2019). The
history of DNA: From crime scenes to consumer
goods.
Science.
International Journal of Law And Criminology
11
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
Vick, K., Cook, K. J., & Rogers, M. (2021). Lethal
leverage: False confessions, false pleas, and
wrongful homicide convictions in death-eligible
cases. Contemporary Justice Review, 24(1), 24
–
42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1755845
Walsh, K., Hussemann, J., Flynn, A., Yahner, J., &
Golian, L. (2017). Estimating the prevalence of
wrongful convictions. Report No. 251115 Final
Report to the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service,
grant
number
2013-IJ-CX-0004.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251115.
pdf
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate
hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129
–
140.
Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure
for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356),
737
–
738.
https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0
Wolf, G. (2003). Friedrich Miescher: The man who
discovered DNA. Chemical Heritage, 21(10
–
11),
37
–
41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717
Zalman, M., Smith, B., & Kiger, A. (2008). Offi
cials’
estimates of the incidence of “actual innocence”
convictions. Justice Quarterly, 25(1), 72
–
100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820801954563
