"Now I See It for What It Really Is": The Impact of Participation in an Innocence Project Practicum on Criminology Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the growing number of university and law school-based innocence projects in North America, the impact of participation in the case review process on students has been underexplored. The current study investigated the experiences of criminology students who participated in an innocence project practicum at a Canadian university. Overall, participants found the practicum to be a positive experience that led to greater empowerment and increased feelings of competence and self-worth. Additionally, the innocence practicum impacted students' views of wrongful conviction and their beliefs about the criminal justice system. In particular, students left the practicum with a better appreciation of the factors that contribute to wrongful conviction, knowledge that wrongful convictions occur more frequently than they previously thought, feelings of empathy about the post-release challenges faced by exonerees, and the sense that they could make a difference in the lives of others. Moreover, students developed more negative views of, and lost faith in, the criminal justice system as a result of their involvement in the practicum. The implications of these findings are discussed. I. INTRODUCTION Research has found that many exonerees exhibit psychological symptoms similar to those of survivors of sustained catastrophes, such as victims of abuse and war veterans. (1) For example, Dr. Adrian Grounds conducted extensive assessments of eighteen men who had been erroneously convicted and incarcerated and found that wrongful imprisonment may lead to personality change, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and panic disorder. (2) Studies based on interviews with exonerees reveal that many exonerees experience feelings of profound grief and loss as a result of their wrongful imprisonment. (3) Christopher Ochoa, for example, described the void left by his wrongful conviction when he said: I have no family, I have no kids, I have no education, no car, no house. I used to get the newspaper from back home. I used to see these people that I went to school with. They had kids, beautiful homes, beautiful wives, and all this stuff, and I had nothing.... (4) Although freedom is initially a time of joy and celebration for the wrongly convicted, this joy often gradually subsides as exonerees experience the realities of life after exoneration. (5) Like other ex-prisoners, exonerees face numerous challenges following their release, including locating housing and employment. (6) However, because they are usually released with little notice, preparation, or support, they are often left to confront these challenges on their own. (7) For example, because they are innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated, exonerees are generally not eligible to receive the reintegration counseling, housing assistance, and employment training provided to other ex-prisoners. (8) Exonerees must also cope with social stigma and hostility, which is often fuelled by prosecutors and police, who-despite evidence proving otherwise--maintain that they are guilty. (9) Thus, after years of living in maximum security prisons for crimes they did not commit, exonerees are often re-victimized by those responsible for their wrongful conviction in the first place and left to fend for themselves. (10) As John Wilson remarked: If you're a victim of war, if you're a victim of a disaster, there are all kinds of organizations that will help you. But if you're a victim of our system of justice and you lose your freedom and you're traumatized in a similar manner [as a war veteran or a refugee or a person who's a victim of a disaster or a terrorist act], we don't have any mechanisms to help you get back into a normal life and a normal place in society. (11) To date, over 280 American citizens have been exonerated through the use of post-conviction DNA testing. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".