Date of Conferral

8-29-2025

Degree

Ph.D.

School

Public Policy and Administration

Advisor

Raj Singh

Abstract

Receiving fair and equitable compensation for victims of wrongful incarceration post-release continues to be problematic, inconsistent, and inadequate. This qualitative study addresses the gap in knowledge by exploring the unsatisfactory and varying compensation statutes across states that adversely affect and compound the experiences of exonerees through systemic injustices. The conceptual frameworks for this study are Weible & Sabatier’s guide to the advocacy coalition framework and Jenkins-Smith, et.al, using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Research questions focus on how exonerees describe their experiences with unfair and unequal state compensation laws for victims of wrongful imprisonment, and the impact on the reentry process. The study utilized an in-depth, semi-structured interview with five exonerees of wrongful incarceration. Data from the interviews were coded and categorized using thematic analysis. Results revealed how significantly diverse state compensation statutes throughout the United States are, and the lack of uniform statutes has proven problematic. It will continue to prolong the psychological harm caused, rather than repair it. Creating victim-centered, standard statutes, states promote systemic accountability. Implications for social change include exoneree narratives detailing the lived experiences of wrongfully incarcerated individuals and looking at the systemic inequities in post-exoneration compensation. Justice-centered compensation is a method to restore dignity, accountability, and legislative reform, improving the quality of life for exonerees, their families, and the community.

Download

Included in

Criminology Commons

Share

 
COinS