ANALYSIS OF DATA IN RELATION TO SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
________________________________________________________________________________________

Through the course Sociology of Law, we have examined laws place within society and its many different functions and implications. Specifically, the issue of wrongful imprisonment can be related to the ideas and theories discussed in class of law as a tool of oppression, the critical legal studies approach, and the conflict paradigm.

The conflict paradigm is the overreaching sociological theory created by sociologist Karl Marx. This theory is based upon economic means and states that there is constant competition within two groups in society. This power struggle is between the owners of the means of production and the working class. In regard to the prison system, the original version of Marx’s theory can be tweaked and applied to the prison system, in a slightly varied way. When applied to the prison system, the conflict theory still stands despite the lack of economic focus due to the broad instances of conflict between to groups still present. The two groups at odds are the powerful government legislatures making the laws that control the second group of parolees and exonerates. There is a constant struggle for exonerates to gain resources and aid under the laws the legislators create in order to stay in power. The idea that law is used as a tool of oppression then falls under this broad scoped theory and provides specific examples in relation to the cases and data provided on this website.

Seen in Marvin Mutch’s case, law is an oppressive tool, specifically to innocent people serving time, due to the extreme difficulty of the appeals process. Mutch spent every year he was incarcerated fighting for his freedom, yet it took him 41 years to finally get released. This is due to the many legal processes and hoops he had to jump through to even be considered for release. For example, the parole board serves as a tool for oppression because of the extreme bias present. A board of 5 or so people are solely in charge of if you get released or not. Your life and freedom depends on these few people and the predispositions or bias’ they might hold. Thus, the parole board process of appeals is oppressing due to the relativity and ability for bias to creep in. Also, the differences between jurisdiction and laws from state to state differ greatly making release a more difficult thing in some places rather than others. For instance, California law that the governor must sign off on parolees’ release kept Mutch in prison 10 more years when he could have been free in a state that did not have such a law, thus creating oppression.

Once released and exonerated one may think the exonerate is completely free and rid of oppression but this is not the case. Since they have not been in society for a great amount of time they lose their ability to function within society as a competent person. In addition, since they are away from friends and family for so long, relationships deteriorate and they are left with nowhere to go and do not have the proper skills to function and get on from day to day. This is an example of the implicit oppression the law creates. On top of that, not all states offer compensation for the years and experiences lost due to wrongful incarceration, thus, proving law in the criminal justice system does not take into account individual rights and wellbeing. It rather serves to oppress people who did not do any wrong under the law but where roped into this broken system.

In addition to the conflict paradigm mentioned above, a critical legal studies approach can be used in examining the previous arguments. Critical Legal studies is based upon legal realism and states that law is not neutral. Rather, there is a major gap between what the law says and how the law is implemented in society. This gap can be seen specifically in the statutes regarding access to compensation for exonerates. Although it is considered law in certain states that exonerates receive some amount of compensation, there is a major discrepancy between this law and how it is actually implemented and followed. This law highlights very specific guidelines for who can qualify for compensation, making it very difficult and rare that exonerates get compensation. Although, outwardly the law seems to honor and address the need for compensation, the law in action requires tedious steps of hiring a lawyer and tirelessly arguing ones case to most likely be shut down. This is just one of the many instances in which a critical legal studies eye can be applied to the exoneration process through a sociological viewpoint.