Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 259–286 | Cite as

Measuring Self-Reported Wrongful Convictions Among Prisoners

  • Charles E. LoefflerEmail author
  • Jordan Hyatt
  • Greg Ridgeway
Original Paper



Estimate the frequency of self-reported factual innocence in non-capital cases within a state population of prisoners.


We conducted a survey of a population sample of state prisoners who were asked to anonymously report their involvement in the crimes for which they were most recently convicted. To assess the validity of verifiable responses, prisoner self-report data were compared to aggregate conviction and demographic information derived from administrative records. To assess the validity of unverifiable responses, we developed a non-parametric test to estimate the probability of false innocence claims.


We estimate that wrongful convictions occur in 6% of criminal convictions leading to imprisonment in an intake population of state prisoners. This estimate masks a considerable degree of conviction-specific variability ranging from a low of 2% in DUI convictions to a high of 40% in rape convictions. Implausible or false innocence claims are estimated to occur in 2% of cases.


The present investigation demonstrates that survey methods can provide bounded estimates of factual innocence claims within a discrete and known population. The resulting estimates, the first to formally separate claims of legal and factual innocence and to incorporate a formal measure of response plausibility, suggest that prisoners themselves are very often willing to self-report the correctness of their convictions. At the same time, a considerable minority indicate that procedural weaknesses with the administration of justice occurred in their cases. And, a distinct minority, with considerable offense variation, maintain that they are completely innocent of the charges against them.


Wrongful conviction Innocence Binomial mixture model Self-report Prevalence 


  1. Bedau HA, Radelet ML (1987) Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Rev 40:21–179Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann MM, Byers T, Freedman DS, Mokdad A (1998) Validity of self-reported diagnoses leading to hospitalization: a comparison of self-reports with hospital records in a prospective study of American adults. Am J Epidemiol 147:969–977Google Scholar
  3. Berman J, McCombs H, Boruch R (1977) Notes on the contamination method: two small experiments in assuring confidentiality of responses. Soc Methods Res 6:45–62Google Scholar
  4. Biderman AD (1967) Surveys of population samples for estimating crime incidence. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 374:16–33Google Scholar
  5. Biderman AD, Reiss AJ (1967) On exploring the “dark figure” of crime. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 374:1–15Google Scholar
  6. Blumberg AS (1967) The practice of law as confidence game: organizational cooptation of a profession. Law Soc Rev 1:15–39Google Scholar
  7. Borchard E (1932) Convicting the innocent; errors of criminal justice. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  8. Boruch RF (1972) Relations among statistical methods for assuring confidentiality of social research data. Soc Sci Res 1:403–414Google Scholar
  9. Boruch RF (1979) Assuring the confidentiality of social research data. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Borus ME (1966) Response error in survey reports of earnings information. J Am Stat Assoc 61:729–738Google Scholar
  11. Brandon R, Davies C (1973) Wrongful imprisonment: mistaken convictions and their consequences. Allen and Unwin, Crows NestGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson EA (2014) Prisoners in 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Cernkovich SA, Giordano PC, Pugh MD (1985) Chronic offenders: the missing cases in self-report delinquency research criminology. J Crim Law Criminol 76:705–732Google Scholar
  14. Chaiken JM, Chaiken MR, Peterson JE (1982) Varieties of criminal behavior. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  15. Coutts E, Jann B (2011) Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Soc Methods Res 40:169–193Google Scholar
  16. Deming WE, Stephan FF (1941) On the interpretation of censuses as samples. J Am Stat Assoc 36:45–49Google Scholar
  17. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 39:1–38Google Scholar
  18. Dwyer J (2000) Actual innocence: five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted, 1st edn. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1986) Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1:54–75Google Scholar
  20. Elliott DS (1995) Lies, damn lies, and arrest statistics. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  21. Erickson ML, Empey LT (1963) Court records, undetected delinquency and decision-making comments and research reports. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 54:456–469Google Scholar
  22. Farrington DP (1977) The effects of public labelling. Br J Criminol 17:112–125Google Scholar
  23. Findley KA (2010) Defining innocence. Albany Law Rev 74:1157–1173Google Scholar
  24. Fox JA, Tracy PE (1980) The randomized response approach applicability to criminal justice research and evaluation. Eval Rev 4:601–622Google Scholar
  25. Fox JA, Tracy PE (1984) Measuring associations with randomized response. Soc Sci Res 13:188–197Google Scholar
  26. Frank J (1957) Not guilty, 1st edn. Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner ES (1952) The court of last resort. Doubleday, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrett BL (2008) Judging Innocence. Columbia Law Rev 108:55–142Google Scholar
  29. Garrett BL (2011) Convicting the innocent. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Garrett BL (2017) End of its rope how killing the death penalty can revive criminal justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Gastwirth JL, Sinclair MD (1998) Diagnostic test methodology in the design and analysis of judge-jury agreement studies. Jurimetrics 39:59–78Google Scholar
  32. Gold M (1970) Delinquent behavior in an American city. Brooks/Cole PubCo, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  33. Gould JB, Leo RA (2010) One hundred years later: wrongful convictions after a century of research. J Crim Law Criminol 1973–100:825–868Google Scholar
  34. Gould JB, Carrano J, Leo RA, Hail-Jares K (2014) Predicting erroneous convictions. Iowa Law Rev 99:471–522Google Scholar
  35. Greenberg BG, Kuebler RR Jr, Abernathy JR, Horvitz DG (1971) Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data. J Am Stat Assoc 66:243–250Google Scholar
  36. Gross SR (1998) Lost lives: miscarriages of justice in capital cases. Law Contemp Probl 61:125–152Google Scholar
  37. Gross SR (2013) How many false convictions are there? How many exonerations are there? In: Killias M (ed) Huff CR. Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice: causes and remedies in north American and European criminal justice systems, Routledge, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  38. Gross SR (2015) The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America. Washington Post, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Gross SR (2016) Exonerations in 2015. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  40. Gross SR, O’Brien B (2008) Frequency and predictors of false conviction: why we know so little, and new data on capital cases. J Empir Leg Stud 5:927–962Google Scholar
  41. Gross SR, O’Brien B, Hu C, Kennedy EH (2014) Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:7230–7235Google Scholar
  42. Groves RM, Lyberg L (2010) Total survey error: past, present, and future. Public Opin Q 74:849–879. Google Scholar
  43. Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF (1994) How frequently do false confessions occur? an empirical study among prison inmates. Psychol Crime Law 1:21Google Scholar
  44. Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF, Asgeirsdottir BB, Sigfusdottir ID (2006) Custodial interrogation, false confession and individual differences: a national study among Icelandic youth. Pers Individ Differ 41:49–59Google Scholar
  45. Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF, Sigfusdottir ID (2009) Interrogation and false confessions among adolescents in seven European countries. What background and psychological variables best discriminate between false confessors and non-false confessors? Psychol Crime Law 15:711–728Google Scholar
  46. Hardt RH, Peterson-Hardt S (1977) On determining the quality of the delinquency self-report method. J Res Crime Delinq 14:247–259Google Scholar
  47. Harlow SD, Linet MS (1989) Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records the evidence for accuracy of recall. Am J Epidemiol 129:233–248Google Scholar
  48. Hill AP, Ross RK (1982) Reliability of recall of drug usage and other health-related information. Am J Epidemiol 116:114–122Google Scholar
  49. Hindelang MJ (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  50. Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1979) Correlates of delinquency: the illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. Am Soc Rev 44:995–1014Google Scholar
  51. Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  52. Hood R, Hoyle C (2015) The death penalty: a worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Huff CR, Rattner A, Sagarin E, MacNamara DEJ (1986) Guilty until proved innocent: wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime Delinq 32:518–544Google Scholar
  54. Huizinga D, Elliott DS (1986) Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. J Quant Criminol 2:293–327Google Scholar
  55. Jann B, Jerke J, Krumpal I (2012) Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Public Opin Q 76:32–49Google Scholar
  56. Kaplowitz SA, Shlapentokh V, McGregor JP, Rabinovich L (1982) Possible falsification of survey data: an analysis of a mail survey in the soviet union. Public Opin Q 46:1–23Google Scholar
  57. Kirk DS (2006) Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. J Quant Criminol 22:107–129Google Scholar
  58. Krause K, Lategan (2016) Annual Statistical Report. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics, Mechanicsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  59. Laird N (1978) Nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation of a mixing distribution. J Am Stat Assoc 73:805–811Google Scholar
  60. Laufer WS (1995) The rhetoric of innocence. Wash Law Rev 70:329Google Scholar
  61. Leo RA (2005) Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: developing a criminology of wrongful conviction. J Contemp Crim Justice 21:201–223Google Scholar
  62. Liebman JS, Fagan J, West V, Lloyd J (1999) Capital attrition: error rates in capital cases, 1973–1995. Tex Law Rev 78:1839Google Scholar
  63. Lustgarten E (1950) Verdict in dispute. Scribner’s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Macnamara DEJ (1969) Convicting the innocent. Crime Delinq 15:57–61Google Scholar
  65. Manski CF (2003) Partial identification of probability distributions. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Marquis KH, Ebener PA (1981) Quality of prisoner self-reports. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  67. Miller JD (1981) Complexities of the randomized response solution. Am Soc Rev 46:928–930Google Scholar
  68. Murphy FJ, Shirley MM, Witmer HL (1946) The incidence of hidden delinquency. Am J Orthopsychiatry 16:686–696Google Scholar
  69. Natapoff A (2012) Misdemeanors. South Calif Law Rev 85:1313–1375Google Scholar
  70. Natapoff A (2015) Misdemeanors. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 11:255–267Google Scholar
  71. National Registry of Exonerations (2015) Misdemeanors. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  72. Nye FI, Short JF (1957) Scaling delinquent behavior. Am Sociol Rev 22:326–331Google Scholar
  73. Peterson MA, Braiker HB, Polich SM (1980) Doing crime: a survey of California prison inmates. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  74. Peterson MA, Chaiken JM, Ebener PA, Honig P (1982) Survey of prison and jail inmates: background and method. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  75. Peterson J, Ryan JP, Houlden PJ, Mihajlovic S (1987) The uses and effects of forensic science in the adjudication of felony cases. J Forensic Sci 32:11231JGoogle Scholar
  76. Peterson J, Hickman MJ, Strom KJ, Johnson DJ (2013) Effect of forensic evidence on criminal justice case processing. J Forensic Sci 58:S78–S90Google Scholar
  77. Piquero AR, Schubert CA, Brame R (2014) Comparing official and self-report records of offending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful offenders. J Res Crime Delinq 51:526–556Google Scholar
  78. Poveda TG (2001) Estimating wrongful convictions. Justice Q 18:689–708Google Scholar
  79. Radelet ML, Lofquist WS, Bedau HA (1996) Prisoners released from death rows since 1970 because of doubts about their guilt. Thomas M Cool Law Rev 13:907Google Scholar
  80. Radin ED (1964) The innocents. Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Raghavarao D, Federer WT (1979) Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 41:40–45Google Scholar
  82. Ramsey RJ, Frank J (2007) Wrongful conviction perceptions of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime Delinq 53:436–470Google Scholar
  83. Rattner A (1988) Convicted but innocent: wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law Hum Behav 12:283–293Google Scholar
  84. Redlich AD, Summers A, Hoover S (2010) Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum Behav 34:79–90Google Scholar
  85. Reiss AJ, Rhodes AL (1961) The distribution of juvenile delinquency in the social class structure. Am Soc Rev 26:720–732Google Scholar
  86. Risinger DM (2007) Innocents convicted: an empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. J Crim Law Criminol 1973–97:761–806Google Scholar
  87. Robison SM (1936) Can delinquency be measured. Pub. for the Welfare council of New York city. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. Roman J, Reid SE, Chalfin AJ, Knight CR (2009) The DNA field experiment: a randomized trial of the cost-effectiveness of using DNA to solve property crimes. J Exp Criminol 5:345Google Scholar
  89. Roman J, Walsh K, Lachman P, Yahner J (2012) Post-conviction DNA testing and wrongful conviction. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  90. Rosenmerkel S, Durose M, Farole D (2010) Felony sentences in state courts, 2006-statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  91. Short J, Nye F (1959) Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency tentative conclusions. J Crim Law Criminol 49:296Google Scholar
  92. Sigurdsson JF, Gudjonsson GH (1996) The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A study among icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Pers Individ Differ 20:321–329Google Scholar
  93. Skogan W (1981) Issues in the measurement of victimization. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  94. Snell T (2014) Capital punishment, 2013-statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  95. Spencer BD (2007) Estimating the accuracy of jury verdicts. J Empir Leg Stud 4:305–329Google Scholar
  96. Tan MT, Tian G-L, Tang M-L (2009) Sample surveys with sensitive questions: a nonrandomized response approach. Am Stat 63:9–16Google Scholar
  97. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  98. Thygesen LC, Ersbøll AK (2014) When the entire population is the sample: strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 29:551–558Google Scholar
  99. Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 133:859Google Scholar
  100. Tracy PE, Fox JA (1981) The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. Am Sociol Rev 46:187–200Google Scholar
  101. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (1965a) Reporting of hospitalization in the health interview survey. Vital Health Stat Ser 1 Programs Collect Proced 1–71Google Scholar
  102. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (1965b) Health interview responses compared with medical records. Vital Health Stat Ser 1 Programs Collect Proced 1–74Google Scholar
  103. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (1966) Interview responses on health insurance compared with insurance records. Vital Health Stat 2:1–43Google Scholar
  104. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (1967) Interview data on chronic conditions compared with information derived from medical records. Vital Health Stat 2:1–84Google Scholar
  105. Warner SL (1965) Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc 60:63–69Google Scholar
  106. Weiser B (2016) Trial by jury, a hallowed American right, is vanishing. N. Y. Times, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  107. Weiss CH (1968) Validity of welfare mothers’ interview responses. Public Opin Q 32:622–633Google Scholar
  108. Zalman M, Smith B, Kiger A (2008) Officials’ estimates of the incidence of “actual innocence” convictions. Justice Q 25:72–100Google Scholar
  109. Zalman M, Larson MJ, Smith B (2012) Citizens’ attitudes toward wrongful convictions. Crim Justice Rev 37:51–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles E. Loeffler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jordan Hyatt
    • 2
  • Greg Ridgeway
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CriminologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice StudiesDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations