{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018201284796573874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.493055555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
'Misconvictions', Science, and the Ministers of Justice

This article provides a new perspective on wrongful convictions - what I term misconvictions. Focusing on the intersection of ethics and expert evidence in criminal cases, the article specifically considers the role of judges and prosecutors, collectively referred to as the ministers of justice. The article has a dual focus: first, to explain the forensic science concerns that contribute to misconvictions; and second, to contemplate the ethical roles that the ministers of justice have in creating misconvictions by their management of expert evidence. In addition to explaining how problematic forensic science can contribute to wrongful convictions, the article details the ethical concerns of prosecutorial and judicial acts and omissions. The article concludes with some suggested changes of a legal and ethical nature that might help reduce the rate of misconvictions.