3 ms·
> The problem is that, as a purely practical matter, there is simply no easy way to correct it. There isn't a way I can think of to correct it ex post facto,
by iamsohungry 11y ago
> The problem is that, as a purely practical matter, there is simply no easy way to correct it.
There isn't a way I can think of to correct it ex post facto, but we can definitely prevent these kinds of problems better. One big area where we can improve things is on data collected.
Currently, the only data I can usually find on prosecutors is usually their conviction rates. But the job of a prosecutor isn't just to convict people, it's to convict people who are guilty. Highly visible conviction rates mean that a prosecutor is incentivized to try only easy-to-win cases, even if the defendant in an easy-to-win case is innocent or the defendant in a hard-to-win case is guilty. We need more effort put into overturning convictions generally, and careful collection data on overturned convictions and that data needs to be publicized equally to conviction rates. If 5% of a prosecutor's convictions are overturned either through appeal or reversal, that should be a huge red flag.
The other thing is, the vast majority of convictions are of poor people who are defended by a public defender. Public defenders are underfunded, understaffed, and as a result, often underqualified (if you're a great lawyer, there's no reason to become a public defender when you can get paid far more for easier work doing prosecution or private practice). Who knows how much of this false evidence would have been discovered earlier if a competent, well-funded, and well-staffed defense lawyer had investigated the evidence? At the very least, I think prosecution budgets should be tied to defense budgets: there's no reason prosecution should ever be funded more than defense. And it might be worth investigating putting public defenders through the same election process as district attorneys (I'm not sure this would work, but I'm not sure it has been tried).
- Zigurd 11y agoAnother way would be to move data acquisition about a case, such as DNA, etc. into the judicial branch, or at least out of law enforcement and prosecution. Tests should be blind, and equally accessible to the defense, and QA'ed by sending test data through the system. Prosecutors also effectively set the schedule for labs, which means difficult cases like rapes pile up.
- rhizome 11y agoOr hey, a new "information" branch.
- mikeash 11y agoI would argue that a prosecutor's job is not about guilt or innocence, and that it is to just convict people. Just like it's the defending attorney's job to get people acquitted, regardless of guilt or innocence. It is the court's role to convict guilty people and acquit innocent people, which in theory happens when you allow a prosecutor who wants to convict and a defending attorney who wants to acquit to argue in front of an impartial judge and jury. In theory. It's a wacky system when you think about it and there's plenty of places it can fall down. But as built, I don't think it's the prosecutor's job to decide innocence or guilt. They do need to follow the rules, though. If they're obtaining convictions by violating the rules, they need to be punished strongly. If they're obtaining false convictions within the rules then the rules need to be reexamined.
- sokoloff 11y agoI don't see any reason why there should be symmetry between the defense's aim to get the best outcome for their client and the prosecutor's office's role to get the worst outcome. Instead, I'm fine if every stage and every actor in the system was biased towards a finding of not guilty. To that end, I do think it's incumbent on the prosecutors to only seek to convict those it believes are guilty rather than those it believes it can convict.
- jacquesm 11y agoI disagree. A prosecutor has the full weight of a government and the associated resources behind him. To bring those resources to bear on someone they know is innocent should be a crime all in its own right.
- fineman 11y agoThe prosecutors job is to pursue a case they know is unjust against a defendant they know is innocent? Because this helps society?
- mikeash 11y agoIt shouldn't be possible for a prosecutor to know that a defendant is innocent and simultaneously be confident that they have a solid case that can result in a guilty verdict. A prosecutor trying to optimize for conviction rates will still refrain from prosecuting people when he doesn't have a good case. It's just based on the quality of the case, not the presumed guilt or innocence of the accused.