To date, little attention has been given to the problems associated with restoring or compensating persons who have been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. Most of the discussion has focused on the legal system as the most appropriate remedy in a retributive justice system, ignoring the unintended consequences of judicial remedies that create barriers to adequately reintegrate individuals into society. This article reviews the strategies currently available to compensate thewrongfullyconvictedanduses therestorative justice framework to proposeanalternative approachthat is extrajudicial, groundedin the executive branch’s responsibilityto provide for the administration of justice.
Anderson, C. (2005). Recommendation: Report to the house of delegates. Section of Criminal Justice, American Bar Association, February 1-10.
2.
Armbrust, S. (2004). Notes:When money isn’t enough: The case for holistic compensation of the wrongfully convicted. American Criminal Law Review, 41, 157-182.
3.
Bernhard, A. (1999). When justice fails: Indemnification for unjust conviction. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 6, 73-112.
4.
Bernhard, A. (2004). Justice still fails: A review of recent efforts to compensate individuals who have been unjustly convicted and later exonerated. Drake Law Review, 52, 703-738.
5.
Blackerby, J. (2003). Life after death row: Preventing wrongful capital convictions and restoring innocence after exoneration. Vanderbilt Law Review, 56, 1179-1226.
6.
Blackmun, H. (1994). Dissenting opinion in McFarland v.Scott, 512 U.S.1256-1259.
7.
Bohm, R. (2003). +DeathQuest II. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
8.
Borchard, E. (1941). State indemnity for errors of criminal justice. Boston University Law Review, 21, 201-201.
9.
Bowman, J. (2003). The myths & realities of re-entry programs. Justice Matters: Newsletter of the Western Prison Project, 5, 7-9.
10.
Burnett, C. (2002). Justice denied:Clemency appeals in death penalty cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
11.
Constantine, L., et al. (2001). Model act: Model prevention and remedy of erroneous convictions act. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 665-718.
12.
Dieter, R. (2004). Innocence and the crisis in the American death penalty. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center.
13.
The DNA defense. (2005). Technology Review, 108, 20-20.
14.
Grounds, A. (2004). Psychological consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 165-182.
15.
Herrera v. Collins, 113 S. Ct. 853 (1993).
16.
Horan, D. (2000). The innocence commission: An independent review board for wrongful convictions. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 20, 91-189.
17.
Huff, C. (2002). What can we learn from other nations about the problem of wrongful conviction?Judicature, 86, 91-97.
18.
Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Innocence Project. (2005). An act concerning claims for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Model legislation, 2005 State Legislative Sessions. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org
20.
Johnston, J. (2000). Reasonover v. Washington: Toward a just treatment of the wrongly convicted in Missouri. UMKC Law Review, 68, 411-436.
21.
Klein, R. (1986). The emperor Gideon has no clothes: The empty promise of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 13, 625-693.
22.
Leipold, A. (2001). The problem of the innocent, acquitted defendant. Northwestern University Law Review, 94, 1297-1356.
23.
Life After Exoneration Program. (2003, September). New York City Workshop Report, 1, 3-5.
24.
Lopez, A. (2002). $10 and a denim jacket? A model for compensating the wrongly convicted. Georgia Law Review, 36, 665-722.
25.
Master, H. (2004). NOTE: Revisiting the takings-based argument for compensating the wrongfully convicted. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 60, 97-148.
26.
Moore, M. (1996). Tinkering with the machinery of death: An examination and analysis of state indigent defense systems and their application to death-eligible defendants. William and Mary Law Review, 37, 1617-1671.
27.
Neufeld, P. (2001). Symposium: Preventing the execution of the innocent: Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Hofstra Law Review, 29, 1155-1155.
28.
Reed v. State of New York, 574 N.E.2d 433 (1991).
29.
Rosenn, K. (1976). Compensating the innocent accused. Ohio State Law Journal, 37, 705-728.
30.
Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2002). Toward the formation of “innocence commissions” in America. Judicature, 86, 98-105.
31.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
32.
September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. (2001). Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/victimcompensation
33.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668. (1984).
34.
Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
35.
Vick, D. (1995). Poorhouse justice: Underfunded indigent defense services and arbitrary death sentences. Buffalo Law Review, 43, 329-460.
36.
Zehr, H.(2002). The little book of restorative justice.Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
