As of 9/1/2019, the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) "exonerated"/"innocent list has 166 "exonerees" released from death row (fn 1).
Within that list, there are two major errors which brings that 166 number down to 33 , as reviewed in (1) and (2), just below.
The Innocence Project and the National Registry of Exonerations appear to have similar "standards" as DPIC.
Since 1998, the DPIC "exoneration" and/or "innocence" numbers have been an, easily, discovered deception, as basic, simple fact checking/vetting confirms ( fn 2 ).
In 1998/99, it took me 5 minutes to discover this and I wrote the first op/ed on this, in 2000, "Death on Hold?", The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 2/5/00.
(1) The DPIC Deception of "Innocent" and "Exoneration"
The DPIC, simply, redefined both "exonerated" and "innocent" (fn 3) as if they had redefined lie as truth, and stuffed a bunch of cases into those perverted definitions. This is not in dispute and is very common knowledge, for anyone that fact checks/vets or is, otherwise, involved in this public policy debate. See (3), just below.
DPIC labels death row cases "exoneration"/"innocent" based upon any one of these:
When a conviction is overturned, if (a) the state does not seek a retrial; (b) charges are dismissed; or (3) if a retrial occurs and the defendant is found not guilty. (fn 3)
None of those descriptions defines or establishes "factual innocence", as most know. Based upon DPIC's definitions, all of those, that the DPIC calls "exonerated"/"innocent" could be factually guilty of those murders.
However, based upon several reviews, between 17-29% (fn 2) , or an average, or 23%, can be claimed as truly, factually innocent or a 71-83% (77% average) error rate in the DPIC "innocent"/"exoneration" claims, when evaluating those cases with the proper definition of innocent/exonerated, being "it has been proven that the exonerated/innocent person had no connection to the murder(s)". or equivalent.
The DPIC tells us that the "Innocence List" was created "to identify the risks that innocent people might be executed.' (fn 4).
That's a lie. It was created to be a deception.
If DPIC were being truthful, such would mean "factually innocent" inmates, as properly defined Yet DPIC tells us that the standard is their three definitions, none of which need an actually innocent finding (fn 4).
The DPIC deception is idiotic: We can't execute legally innocent inmates. That is impossible.
The only innocents we can execute are "factually innocent" ones that have been through the appellate process, without being overturned and without "factual innocence" being discovered, prior to execution -- the specific cases that DPIC said that the "Innocence List" was, allegedly, designed to reveal but, instead is just a clear deception.
In addition, DPIC fails to tell us how many of those "exonerated" had been taken off death row, prior to their "exoneration", meaning no longer subject to execution. 48% of cases are removed from death row by means other than execution . . . meaning that due process removed the possibility of them being an actually innocent executed.
Those 48% taken off death row were no longer subject to execution, lowering the risk, even more.
As detailed, there are no credible cases of innocents executed in the modern era, meaning that the required due process has done its job.
(2) Modern Era Death Penalty
The DPIC has (now 9/1/19) 23 cases in their "Innocence Database" (fn 1), which had convictions prior to 1977 (fn 1). Those should be excluded, with some exceptions (fn 1a).
The modern death penalty era began after Gregg v Georgia (1976), which radically changed death penalty jurisprudence. That is not in dispute.
Looking at, only, post Gregg cases (see fn 1a), such brings the number down from 166 to 143, then 143 times a 23% accuracy rate (77% error rate), for the average of 33 cases of factual innocence, or a range of 24-41 cases of factual innocence, for the error rate of 71-83%.
(3) Confirmation of the numbers
There is an easy way for anyone to confirm this, on their own.
Important - you must fact check/vet anything DPIC tells you.
Of course, you should do similar confirmations with the Innocence Project and the National Registry of Exonerations, both of which seem to have similar problems.
Send the following, a-e, including fn 1, to:
Email DPIC, CMadvig@deathpenaltyinfo.org and request:
a) How many of the DPIC (now 9/1/19) (post 1977 convictions) 143 "innocent"/"exonerated" have been declared "factually innocent" by a judicial or legislative body, given that responsibility by statute, with the definition of "factual innocence" being "it has been proven that the "exonerated"/"innocent" person had no connection to the murder(s)" or equivalent; and
b) Which of the "exonerated"/"innocent", from the DPIC list (fn 1), were denied compensation based upon "wrongful convictions" and/or "factual innocence", as defined, above? and
c) Which of the "exonerated"/"innocent" from the DPIC list (fn 1), chose not to apply for compensation based upon an alleged "wrongful convictions" and/or alleged "factual innocence", as defined, above? and
d) Which of the "exonerated"/"innocent" from the DPIC list (fn 1), were compensated based upon their "wrongful convictions", whereby that "wrongful conviction" was not based upon "factual innocence", as defined above:
e) How many of the "factually innocent", as defined above, were no longer on death row at the time they were proven "factually innocent", as defined above?
f) Can you provide government records for a, b, d and e, from which I can verify their credibility?
fn 1 "Innocence Database" viewed 9/1/19,
NOTE: What is a "Wrongful Conviction"?
It can mean (1) legal error, by existing law, or post conviction new law, whereby the conviction is overturned, (2) cases that are pardoned and/or commuted by Governors or Presidents and /or (3) any judicial proceeding wherein an agreement is reached to commute a case or lessen sanction, based upon many factors . . . and if DPIC so wishes, their 3 conditions . . .
which may or may not have anything to do with "factual innocence".
For example, approximately 39% (3140) of the 8000 death penalty cases, 1977 through 2019, could, accurately, be called "wrongful convictions" (fn 5), of which only O.4% (33) were factually innocent, based upon this review, the rest, 99.6% (3108), being a product of legal issues.
fn 1 "Innocence Database", DPIC, viewed 9/1/19,
fn 1a There are 6 additional cases, whose death sentences were given 1973-1976, from Texas, Florida and Georgia that were not excluded, because their new death penalty statutes, after Furman v Georgia (1972), were all accepted as valid within Gregg v Georgia (1976).
fn 2 Death Row, "Exonerations", Media & Intentional Fraud
Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
fn 3 See bottom of the page, "Terms" then "Exoneration Procedure" at
"Innocence Database", DPIC, viewed 9/1/19,
fn 4) see comments
posted by richard dieter @ 3:34 pm mon, apr 12, 2010
The "Innocent", the "Exonerated" & Death Row:
fn 5 This is an estimate, based upon 1977-2019 death row cases, the only point of which is describing "Wrongful Convictions"
From the Sentence/conviction overturned", "Sentence commuted" and "Other/unknown removals" columns from Page 20, TABLE 17, Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of the sentence, by jurisdiction, 1973–2013,
From which is subtracted the 1973-1976 cases, from those equivalent columns within Page 19, TABLE 16, Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of the sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973–2013.