The public relies on the justice system to provide safety and to ensure that criminals are put in their place so justice can be served. However, there have been many cases where the justice system has failed to put the correct person in jail. Wrongful convictions occur when an innocent person is arrested and charged with a criminal act. “Two thirds of all wrongful convictions are related either to rape or assault” (Ramsey, 2007). The case of Guy Paul Morin is an ideal example of wrongful convictions. This paper will first address the case of Guy Paul Morin, showing where the justice system went wrong. Later, lead on to the ways this problem can be solved and remedies that should be available to people who have become a victim of wrongful convictions. The case of Guy Paul Morin occurred between the 1980’s and the 1990’s. “Morin was accused with the rape and murder of his eight year old neighbour, Christine Jessop, and was convicted in 1992 in Ontario ” (Kaufman, 2001). “He was charged due to the evidence of hair and fibre found on the body of the victim” (Denov & Campbell, 2005). This indicated that there was direct contact between the victim, Jessop, and Morin. This is where the whole situation takes a turn. The forensic scientists that were put to investigate made some mistakes that had a huge impact on the case. “They failed to report that the fibre and hair found on Jessop was contaminated” (Macfarlane, 2006). This now creates the possibility that there was no physical contact between Jessop and Morin. In 1995, he was acquitted of the murder in 1995. This was due to technological advancement that was not available at the time of the murder. “In 1996, the Honourable Fred Kaufman was appointed to be the head of the Commission of Inquiry which was established by the government of Ontario. His duty was to report findings of the case that resulted in Morin getting wrongfully convicted. The three main reasons that Kaufman found were misuse of evidence, relying on unreliable sources and the existence of ‘tunnel vision’” (Kaufman, 2001). This misuse of evidence played a significant role in the conviction of Morin. “The detectives in the case misused their position by altering the profile of the case and forcefully made it resemble Morin. Two investigators from the Centre of Forensic Sciences unit were assigned to this case” (Kaufman, 2001). These two investigators misused their vital role in the case. Instead of showing the evidence as it is, they abused the rights of Morin and showed “contaminated evidence found in Morin’s car” (Kaufman, 2001). Both investigators knew that the fibre they found in Morin’s car was contaminated yet they still decided to show it as evidence in court convincing the judge that Morin did in fact commit the rape and murder of Jessop. Another mishap occurred when investigators used jailhouse informants. The use of these informants is viewed as important in any case because these jailhouse informants have stayed by the accused and has conversed with them many times. Nevertheless, “there have been many situations where the jailhouse informants have lied. They willingly offer false information against the accused. They are able to get money or other goods but they are more interested in achieving a more lenient sentence when they tell investigators information that supports their findings” (Huff & Rattner, 1986). ‘Tunnel vision’ is another finding that Kaufman found that could have led to the misunderstandings in the case of Morin. Kaufman defined ‘tunnel vision’ as “the single-minded and overly narrow focus on a particular investigative or prosecutorial theory, so as to unreasonably colour the evaluation of information received and one’s conduct in response to that information… Anyone, police officer, counsel or judge can become infected by this virus” (Macfarlane, 2006). This means that when the investigator has set his mind on convicting a person, they will do anything to make sure their findings are supporting their evidence. This mind-set also makes the investigator eliminate crucial evidence that is important towards the case. These three factors stated by Kaufman interfered in the case of Guy Paul Morin, resulting in the convictions. The problem of wrongful convictions can be solved. This can be done my being very careful of the evidence and making sure investigators take their duty very seriously. Investigators are appointed to a certain crime to find evidence that could either help the victim or help the accused. In the case of Guy Paul Morin, the actual offender was not found. The detectives “ignored aspects of the profile that did not match Morin” (Devery, 2010). This resulted in a lot of evidence to be hidden. This could have saved Morin from getting charged with a crime he did not commit. Also, it might have been the evidence needed to find the real murder. The Jessop family is may not be happy knowing that the murderer that raped and murdered their daughter is still out there. This could also cause harm to many other families out there as the perpetrator might still be committing heinous crimes. If those two investigators presented proper evidence, it would have saved, not only Morin from being convicted, but also some time and money for the courts. A court case for a murder trial causes a lot of people’s time and money. The court should have in depth into the testimonies of the jailhouse informants. More research could have been done to see whether or not their statements were true or false. This could, again, save the court time and money as they would not have to offer the informant anything in return for their false statement. After finding out about the false testimonies, the court should give the informants a stricter sentence for perjury, lying in court. Lastly, the investigators should be open-minded and should accept all evidence that comes in. They should not attempt to hide the evidence that does not support their findings. By simply taking extra care of evidence, and making sure everything gets done properly, innocent people such as Guy Paul Morin, will not get arrested and charged with crimes they did not commit. 10 years after his first arrest, Morin was exonerated thanks to DNA technology that was not available before 1995, when he was arrested. The government of Canada offered $1.2 million dollars as a compensation for going through all the unnecessary trouble and being wrongfully convicted as, not only a murderer, but a rapist as well. The money given may cover for necessities needed since Morin most likely lost his job and cannot pay for his needs, but it will not cover the cost it takes to regain his reputation back into society. People will continue to think of him as a rapist and murderer even though he was said to be innocent. People that do not know that he was proved innocent still might not want to be near him or let their children near him. This would cause him to be socially excluded which could possibly lead into other issues such as depression or isolation. If he gets psychologically hurt, he could intend to retaliate and hurt other innocent people or hurting himself. The money that the government provides is not sufficient because it would probably go towards the cost of the expensive lawyers and the other essentials needed to prove his innocence. The government cannot provide anything to victims of wrongful convictions that will give them back the life they had before being wrongfully accused of atrocious crime, the time spent in jail, the level of stress caused by the case, and the denial of the right to achieve life goals. Along with the money for compensation, the government of Canada should offer victims of wrongful convictions with access to therapy and the essential resources needed to ease the process of starting afresh in a society that has changed over the time they were in jail. This would especially help since society is always changing and people are always going to judge a person no matter if they were proven to be innocent.