We've pretty clearly executed the wrong people since there has been DNA testing too. Grisham wrote a non-fiction about it "The Innocent Man." There is some he

We've pretty clearly executed the wrong people since there has been DNA testing too. Grisham wrote a non-fiction about it "The Innocent Man." There is some heavy stuff in it. I guess I'm kind of torn, I think we want prosecutors to be aggressive when they go to court. One the case is over, it seems like they need to be removed, their opinion on DNA testing or other things should no longer be needed. DNA or not, how do you convict an innocent man of a crime he didn't do? Just incredibly bad luck and circumstantial evidence? I don't buy that, not if he has a good defense which he's entitled to. The other thing in this Grisham book is that a lot of the mis-convicted folks are poorer, maybe not the most emotionally balanced, and often kind of outsiders in their communities (like the black guy in the all white town, or the dark haired gothic guy in the rural community) and there is more than just DNA evidence that have been perverted. To have any reasonable oversight or feed back into the system, you'd have to remove the prosecutor once his job is done.