In law, a conviction is a determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime. This can follow a guilty plea that is accepted by the court, a jury trial in which a verdict of guilty is delivered or a trial by judge wherein the judge finds the defendant guilty. Convictions are considered criminal records and can be found on background checks. Prosecutors strive to get convictions and defense attorneys attempt to prevent them. The United States was founded on many convictions, including the belief in free speech and separation of church and state.

As Americans have become more aware of wrongful convictions, prosecutors have responded by creating Conviction Integrity Units (CIU), which are designed to prevent, identify and remedy false convictions. While CIUs are an improvement over the status quo, existing post-conviction review procedures may not be well suited to investigating claims of actual innocence in cases with forensic evidence that supports a claim of innocence. In this article, the authors describe why and how existing court-based procedures fail to address post-conviction fact-based claims of innocence, and discuss why innocence commissions are better suited to reviewing these claims.

Radical uncertainty evokes the possibility that actions will succeed or fail, and it tends to generate curiosity about what might happen. Heuristics and simple rules, more or less implicit models, and beliefs — all of which are stored in memory — inform the components built into conviction narratives to manage approach-avoidance emotions related to the uncertain situation.