7 ms·

IMHO this is indicative of a "win at all cost" justice system. By and large prosecutors are allowed to say just about anything they want, solicit any testimony

IMHO this is indicative of a "win at all cost" justice system. By and large prosecutors are allowed to say just about anything they want, solicit any testimony they wish, and those in law enforcement, forensics, and the state, dutifully follow suit. The machine of the state is at fault here, and prosecutors should themselves be thrown in jail for such behavior.

akshatpradhan 11y ago
Someone once told me, "Save all lives at any cost to privacy". I feel that's similar to what you mentioned, "win at all costs" justice system. Perhaps there's more of this kind of mentality when it comes to the Justice System, particularly the FBI and Prosecutors.
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  It's true. I think we're living in an era of systemic failure of risk analysis. I see it in my company too, where the InfoSec team is basically given free reign, and they're not happy unless every machine is airgapped. At other companies, there is no concept of security at all. Where is the department that makes the cost/benefit analysis of security measures? I don't see it in government, i don't see it in the private sector.
  - oarsinsync 11y ago
    > I see it in my company too, where the InfoSec team is basically given free reign I think I'm leaving your company soon. It's definitely too much to be dealing with.
  - branchless 11y ago
    This is so true. In some places all IT sec have to say is "in theory it's possible" and people have to comply. In theory lots of things are possible. We need to balance the risk.
vintermann 11y ago
Why is it like that? Is it especially bad for prosecutors' careers to not get convictions?
- beeboop 11y ago
  My guess is laziness. The easiest way to get a conviction is to the the shitty things mentioned. It requires less thought and less effort but still appears to be doing your job as a prosecutor.
- unprepare 11y ago
  yes. I believe that prosecutors generally want to progress into a political or judicial career. Those careers value high conviction rates, political careers love people "tough on crime"
  - webXL 11y ago
    "tough on crime" == "soft on justice" I think voters fall for that slogan because we hate crime and injustice (unfairness) in general. Even though we need to be critical of both sides of the law ("we the people"), it's far easier to focus on/attack the unfairness we see rather than promote the everyday fairness that we take for granted. And we need closure in a lot of cases, so just pin it on that seedy looking character over there if there's hardly any evidence. A mob mentality is born out of our natural desire for "law & order".
- Zigurd 11y ago
  being a prosecutor is a stepping stone to higher office. You get very politically ambitious people in that job. They live to win any way they can.
the_ancient 11y ago
I see you have made a common mistake, you see we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system to the extent any justice occur is only a coincidence
nateabele 11y ago
'Justice' implies something other than what the system is. This is a 'win at all cost' punishment system. Justice doesn't come into it. I can tell you from first-hand experience [0] that, if the system has an opportunity to punish you, it will do so to the maximum extent it possibly can, irrespective of the impact on the victim, the accused, society at large or, frankly, sanity. It is not 'corrective', it is not 'restorative', it is not any of the other euphemisms they use. It is purely punitive. [0] https://fundrazr.com/nicoleabele https://fundrazr.com/nicoleabele
- k3oni 11y ago
  I hear you, had a bit similar situation involving my wife but regarding her work. Sorry to hear about your guys troubles. Were in PA are you guys?
  - nateabele 11y ago
    Philadelphia metro area.
    - k3oni 11y ago
      Not to far away from us, i'll leave something on the fund page. Good luck!
      - nateabele 11y ago
        Oh, thanks, you really don't have to though. I suppose in retrospect, posting the link seems self-serving, but that's the only place the story lives.
- Spellman 11y ago
  That's partly by design, and partly due to skewed incentives. As noted below, the skewed incentives are that prosecutors need to close and get convictions in order to progress. They are graded on how well they can get convictions, not if those were "fair." However, this is also partly be design. The theory of our judicial system is that each side will do everything (legal) in their power to argue opposing sides. And then the judge/jury, after hearing both sides, comes to a logical conclusion. The theory goes that if both sides do their job, each avenue of either guilty or innocent are properly explored and then the decision by the arbiter is the closest to the truth. In reality, though, the prosecutors often have way more leverage and power to argue more persuasively and offer deals than the average defense lawyer. Especially if the defense is from a public defender. And high-end celebrity defense lawyers that cost millions also have a way of overpowering and bringing more resources to bear in the defense. Combined, this means that rarely are both sides actually being argued in a balanced manner, thus skewing which way the arbiter will decide.
dustingetz 11y ago
Win-at-all-cost is itself a derived consequence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system and there are pros and cons
limeyx 11y ago
Well said. Disgusting

akshatpradhan 11y ago

Someone once told me, "Save all lives at any cost to privacy". I feel that's similar to what you mentioned, "win at all costs" justice system. Perhaps there's more of this kind of mentality when it comes to the Justice System, particularly the FBI and Prosecutors.

awakeasleep 11y ago
It's true. I think we're living in an era of systemic failure of risk analysis. I see it in my company too, where the InfoSec team is basically given free reign, and they're not happy unless every machine is airgapped. At other companies, there is no concept of security at all. Where is the department that makes the cost/benefit analysis of security measures? I don't see it in government, i don't see it in the private sector.
- oarsinsync 11y ago
  > I see it in my company too, where the InfoSec team is basically given free reign I think I'm leaving your company soon. It's definitely too much to be dealing with.
- branchless 11y ago
  This is so true. In some places all IT sec have to say is "in theory it's possible" and people have to comply. In theory lots of things are possible. We need to balance the risk.

vintermann 11y ago

Why is it like that? Is it especially bad for prosecutors' careers to not get convictions?

beeboop 11y ago
My guess is laziness. The easiest way to get a conviction is to the the shitty things mentioned. It requires less thought and less effort but still appears to be doing your job as a prosecutor.
unprepare 11y ago
yes. I believe that prosecutors generally want to progress into a political or judicial career. Those careers value high conviction rates, political careers love people "tough on crime"
- webXL 11y ago
  "tough on crime" == "soft on justice" I think voters fall for that slogan because we hate crime and injustice (unfairness) in general. Even though we need to be critical of both sides of the law ("we the people"), it's far easier to focus on/attack the unfairness we see rather than promote the everyday fairness that we take for granted. And we need closure in a lot of cases, so just pin it on that seedy looking character over there if there's hardly any evidence. A mob mentality is born out of our natural desire for "law & order".
Zigurd 11y ago
being a prosecutor is a stepping stone to higher office. You get very politically ambitious people in that job. They live to win any way they can.

the_ancient 11y ago

I see you have made a common mistake, you see we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system to the extent any justice occur is only a coincidence

nateabele 11y ago

'Justice' implies something other than what the system is. This is a 'win at all cost' punishment system. Justice doesn't come into it. I can tell you from first-hand experience [0] that, if the system has an opportunity to punish you, it will do so to the maximum extent it possibly can, irrespective of the impact on the victim, the accused, society at large or, frankly, sanity. It is not 'corrective', it is not 'restorative', it is not any of the other euphemisms they use. It is purely punitive. [0] https://fundrazr.com/nicoleabele https://fundrazr.com/nicoleabele

k3oni 11y ago
I hear you, had a bit similar situation involving my wife but regarding her work. Sorry to hear about your guys troubles. Were in PA are you guys?
- nateabele 11y ago
  Philadelphia metro area.
  - k3oni 11y ago
    Not to far away from us, i'll leave something on the fund page. Good luck!
    - nateabele 11y ago
      Oh, thanks, you really don't have to though. I suppose in retrospect, posting the link seems self-serving, but that's the only place the story lives.
Spellman 11y ago
That's partly by design, and partly due to skewed incentives. As noted below, the skewed incentives are that prosecutors need to close and get convictions in order to progress. They are graded on how well they can get convictions, not if those were "fair." However, this is also partly be design. The theory of our judicial system is that each side will do everything (legal) in their power to argue opposing sides. And then the judge/jury, after hearing both sides, comes to a logical conclusion. The theory goes that if both sides do their job, each avenue of either guilty or innocent are properly explored and then the decision by the arbiter is the closest to the truth. In reality, though, the prosecutors often have way more leverage and power to argue more persuasively and offer deals than the average defense lawyer. Especially if the defense is from a public defender. And high-end celebrity defense lawyers that cost millions also have a way of overpowering and bringing more resources to bear in the defense. Combined, this means that rarely are both sides actually being argued in a balanced manner, thus skewing which way the arbiter will decide.

dustingetz 11y ago

Win-at-all-cost is itself a derived consequence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system and there are pros and cons

limeyx 11y ago

Well said. Disgusting