Talk:List of proven miscarriages of justice

I'm not sure I like this page title and the implied criteria for selection, as it's likely to result in endless disputation which cannot be resolved in any sensible manner. To take a couple of random Australian examples: Lindy Chamberlain (who spent time in gaol for the murder of her baby, but was later acquitted. Many, many Australians still think she was guilty) and Ronald Ryan (last Victorian hanged, death sentence was intensely political and there have been many people in later years who claim that he didn't commit the crime) . How about Nikolai Ceausescu? Whilst his reign was undoubtedly brutal, his "trial" was a joke. Or Karl Donitz?

Frankly, I think there are better uses of the Wikipedia's time than this list (and the profusion of lists like it) anyway, but if there has to be one please explain how people like the above are going to be handled... --Robert Merkel 23:16, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see lists as placeholders for potential articles. All of the people on the list have been acquitted after a supposedly fair trial initially convicted them. Many people in Britain still think that the Birmingham Six were guilty, but the law says that they were wrongly convicted. There are many well-documented cases of miscarriages of justice about ordinary people without getting into war criminals or dictators. I don't think that Nikolai Ceausescu's case has been overturned in Romania, but please inform me if I've got that wrong. Mintguy 23:58, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No way. There is no way that a page of this sort could ever be NPOV, or even coherent. It is overly open-ended. We might as well have an article called "Things that I think are not good and just". It just can't work, and it doesn't even qualify as an encyclopedia article. We might have more defined articles on something like Controversial cases in US Law", Controversial cases in Canadian law, because then the focus would be limited to cases in one nation, and to cases that caused a furor in that country's society. RK 00:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I simply don't understand where you're coming from. These people have been found guilty in a court of law and have subsequently had their convictions quashed. This seems pretty clear cut to me. Wikipedia is not making a judgement as to whether these people are guilty or innocent. Where is the controversy? Mintguy 00:24, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Its the title that is a huge problem. Practically anything could be considered a "miscarriage of justice". (For example, in the US, millions of Christians believe that the Supreme Court's decision to allow abortion in Roe vs. Wade was a miscarriage of justice.) The specific idea you mention here is fine; we just need a title to focus the topic. Maybe something like List of overturned murder convictions; the text of this article could certainly say that these cases are considered egregious miscarriages of justice. RK

What people believe is one thing and what the law decides is another. If we had a list called "innocent people in prison" then you would have a point. Anyway the page is more important than the title. Perhaps list of proven miscarriages of justice would suffice? Mintguy 00:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good grief, this is going to be a source of endless argument. A list of overturned convictions is fine because that is an objective fact. Miscarriage of justice is a subjective opinion however. Some consider the arrest of OJ a miscarriage of justice and some believe his acquittal a miscarriage of justice. Can we list both? How about adding a List of opinions. Sheesh.Ark30inf 00:53, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

FFS can't you read! These people have been found guilty and then proven innocent. What's the matter with you! Miscarriage of justice is a legal term. When it hasn't been proven it's called an alleged miscarriage of justice. Mintguy 01:00, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It might be a legal term, but not everyone editing here is going to know that and unless it is made very clear that you are only listing proven ones, they will start adding all sorts of things. It might be pointless for those with some legal knowledge to say "proven" miscarriages of justice if this is what the term means anyway, but I would still rather the page be made as unambiguous as possible. Angela 01:06, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've moved it to stop any more baiting (I hope). Mintguy 01:09, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nobody is baiting you.Ark30inf 01:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Pardons and acquittals are not the same thing: in fact, the legal theory behind a pardon is "yes, this person committed a crime, but they have been punished sufficiently." Also, how about the reverse: people who were acquitted, or had hung juries, in now-considered-dubious trials and later convicted? For example, killers of Civil Rights activists in the US south, acquitted by all-white juries. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:42, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You can't acquit someone of a crime when they are dead. So those people have been posthumously pardoned. As for the reverse. Start a list if you like. Mintguy 02:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think this is definitely a useful article, Mintguy. Better working titles may be List of overturned convictions and List of overturned acquittals. "Miscarriage of justice" has become a very common term in the English language to even refer to cases where a conviction has not been overturned.—Eloquence