Centro de Documentação da PJ
Monografia
 CD210 |
Post-conviction DNA testing and wrongful conviction [Documento electrónico] / John Roman .. [et al.].- Washington, DC : Urban Institute, 2012.- 1 CD-ROM ; 12 cm
Research report submitted by the Urban Institute - Justice Policy Center and supported by Contract No. 2008F-08165 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Ficheiro de 2,60 MB em formato PDF (69 p.). Disponível também em: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412589-Post-Conviction-DNA-Testing-and-Wrongful-Conviction.pdf. Acedido a 12 de outubro de 2012.
ADN, PROVA, VALOR PROBATÓRIO, SANÇÃO PENAL
Glossary. Executive summary. What this report can and cannot say about wrongful conviction. What is wrongful conviction? What has previous research determined contributes to wrongful convictions? Eyewitness identification and informants. Forensic evidence. Confessions. How does post-conviction DNA testing detect wrongful convictions? The Virginia model of post-conviction DNA testing relief. Virginia in the 1970s and 1980s. Data. Case selection. Data collection. Coding schema. Quality control. Court data collection. County data collection. Data limitations. Generalizability. Omitted variables. Missingness. Measures. Post-conviction DNA testing variables. Preconviction forensic testing variables. Case characteristics. Convicted offender/victim demographics. Conviction county characteristics (Virginia). Methodology. Dropping nonsexual assault homicide convictions. Logistic regressions. Multinomial/Sequential logistic regression/Propensity score analysis. Clustering. Results. What proportion of convictions had determinate DNA testing results? What factors distinguish convictions with determinate and indeterminate DNA testing results? What model predicts whether DNA testing results on a case will lead to determinate or indeterminate conclusions about conviction? What factors distinguish inculpatory sexual assault convictions from all convictions with exculpatory evidence (either currently insufficient or supportive of exoneration)? What model predicts whether determinate DNA testing results on a conviction will be exculpatory or inculpatory regarding a convicted offender’s actual innocence? Does the same model predict exculpatory DNA testing results supporting exoneration, as opposed to inculpatory results? Case studies. Discussion.