4 ms·

We want the prosecutor to decide which cases to prosecute, and which to abandon because it's not likely that the accused is guilty. What you say you want is ac

We want the prosecutor to decide which cases to prosecute, and which to abandon because it's not likely that the accused is guilty. What you say you want is actually horrible and unnecessary, unless you just mean that the prosecutor should proceed if his personal certainty of guilt is only say, 80%, before having encountered all the available evidence; that's fine, because trials should have some truth-finding value, and make all the available evidence known to the prosecution and defense (even if judges can rule out some evidence). At the end of a trial (after all the evidence and testimony is known), in theory, the prosecution and defense should have a pretty good idea of the likelihood of guilt, but we excuse them for playing the game to its conclusion - playing to win even when they suspect their side is wrong: either lying, or deluding themselves with biased/self-interested thinking. In the event a prosecutor is pretty sure the defendant is innocent AND that they can probably get a conviction, I'd like to see them abandon their case (I don't know if this allowed, but they could certainly argue to a jury or judge that the person is innocent), but I understand that it's not required, and I don't consider them evil unless they go further and try to block appeals, or conceal exculpatory evidence.

sliverstorm 17y ago
You realize what you're asking for here is that the prosecutor decide who is innocent and who to fully prosecute, i.e. who is guilty. That completely, or at least partially, negates the idea that the jury of your peers should do the deciding. As soon as the lawyers start making those kinds of choices, it's not (all) in the jury's hands anymore. Perhaps you might suggest the prosecution is in the best position to know. Perhaps you might suggest that if the prosecution is 80% certain of innocence, that clearly the defendant should be found innocent. But, according to our law, (unless I grossly misunderstand them) it is not his choice to make.

sliverstorm 17y ago

You realize what you're asking for here is that the prosecutor decide who is innocent and who to fully prosecute, i.e. who is guilty. That completely, or at least partially, negates the idea that the jury of your peers should do the deciding. As soon as the lawyers start making those kinds of choices, it's not (all) in the jury's hands anymore. Perhaps you might suggest the prosecution is in the best position to know. Perhaps you might suggest that if the prosecution is 80% certain of innocence, that clearly the defendant should be found innocent. But, according to our law, (unless I grossly misunderstand them) it is not his choice to make.