Why do prosecutors think like this?

[fishbob]

No thats not the prosecutors job. thats why they have discretion to drop charges and not prosecute cases.

They are about putting the guilty behind bars. Obvioulsy they believed that this was the right guy. If they didnt they wouldnve had him tried.

Tula, Texas.

The prosecution had to know that the sole prosecution witness was a bit shakey, and that there was no corroborating physical evidence, but they prosecuted anyway.

For due process to be robust and reliable, there must be mechanisms to fix errors.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tony
You have an relative who was wrongly convicted? What happened?

My brother-in-law allegedly raped his step daughter over a hundred times but somehow her hymen was not broken.

The short version of the story is that the girl was badgered into telling the story (perhaps even believes it now) by the ex-wife who was attempting to blackmail him into more alimony. The police bought an expert witness who always sees signs of abuse. The judge excluded much of the exculpatory evidence and the jury bought the teary-eyed fantasy.

The long story has a lot more stuff (e.g. refusal to accept money from a bail bondsmen, prosecutors telephoning about fictitious changes in court dates, police handcuffing him in front of his neighbors for no reason and the repeated lies by government employees) that lead me to believe it is a systematic problem that occurred in two states.

BTW, I detest my b-i-l. He is a rotten, irresponsible person who has neglected his children and exposed them to awful situations. However, after reading the trial transcript, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape his step daughter.

CBL

 

[shanek]

They oppose it cause every last one of the "guilty" would request DNA testing. AND it aint that cheap. Who do you think is paying for all these tests.

Who do you think is paying to keep hundreds if not thousands of innocent people in jail?

 

[Beerina]

They oppose it cause every last one of the "guilty" would request DNA testing.

That's the theory. The reality is that very few request it because the vast majority are guilty, and know it will just help seal their fate. This effect appears to be extremely pronounced on Death Row, where, contrary to expectations that it would start springing prisoners left and right, very few actually requested it. For obvious reasons. On retrospect, of course.

AND it aint that cheap. Who do you think is paying for all these tests.

While it may tax the local city/prosecutor/judicial budget, it's nothing in the larger scheme of things, and I and I'm sure most others don't have any problem spending a little bit more to determine someone is not guilty.

Do you want to spend 19 years wrongly in jail because the prosecutor is a cheapskate?

 

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Why do prosecutors think like this?

So the reason they oppose re-testing DNA evidence is not that they're opposed to discovering the "truth", but that truth has already been established by a verdict.

Curiously, I think you have quotes around the wrong "truth".

I.e. it should read "...is not that they're opposed to discovering the truth, but that "truth" has already been established by a verdict."

 

[Beerina]

The prosecutor's duty is to act justly, but his job is to get re-elected. Sometimes, prosecutors look more to their jobs, than to their duties.


Talking to my English relatives, they thought the idea of electing prosecutors was absurd. I agree with them. It is one office where elections are counterproductive.

Actually, it's idiocy likea prosecutor claiming it's OK to execute an innocent man the state knows is innocent is a perfect example as to why prosecutors should be elected.

His opponent at the next election should have brought it up -- big time.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Why do prosecutors think like this?

Curiously, I think you have quotes around the wrong "truth".

I.e. it should read "...is not that they're opposed to discovering the truth, but that "truth" has already been established by a verdict."

Which would mean that they're opposed to discovering the truth.

 

[The idea]

The short answer is that few persons want to admit they might be wrong.

I like the idea behind your answer, but are we actually talking about people who are merely reluctant to make an admission? Aren't we talking about people who are trying to prevent actions that would reveal the truth?

Perhaps we could revise your answer to say:

The short answer is that a large percentage of people will use whatever power they have to impede investigations that could reveal that they made an error, even if impeding the investigations causes definite and significant harm to innocents.