5 ms·

It strikes me that the problem isn't the gamification so much as the fact that it's a case-closing system. The primary motivation of the prosecution isn't to so

by wycy 7y ago

It strikes me that the problem isn't the gamification so much as the fact that it's a case-closing system. The primary motivation of the prosecution isn't to solve cases, it's to close cases as quickly as possible by finding someone to pin the blame on and lock up. One piece of evidence totally exonerates the defendant but they'll be otherwise easy to convince a jury to lock up? Suppress the evidence and move on. We need to find a way to change the motivation of the prosecution such that they want to actually solve these cases, regardless of how long it takes.

FpUser 7y ago
"Suppress the evidence and move on." How about automatic criminal charge for withholding the evidence?
- wycy 7y ago
  Agreed. Additionally, open&unsolved cases shouldn't be a metric that's considered a ding against prosecutors/police. Open & unsolved is far better than closed with an innocent person behind bars.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Who would prosecute it? The prosecutors are the ones committing the crimes here.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Different prosecutors? One possibility would be to make prosecutorial misconduct at the state level a federal crime.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      But those different prosecutors would also be doing this kind of misconduct. This is a systematic issue. They would not be able to sustain the same rate of conviction if they acted ethically.
      - 0xffff2 7y ago
        Is that really true? I definitely have the (subjective, not backed by research or real familiarity) impression that Federal prosecutors hold themselves to a much higher standard than most state/county DAs. Regardless, you're right and it can't be prosecutors all the way down. Ultimately if you're wronged by the Federal government you probably have to accept some kind of civil liability. Granted the US government isn't great at doing that either, but I think that's a different, largely unrelated problem.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  A prosecutor that withholds evidence in a felony proceeding could be guilty of a felony in most states, and in nearly all states would be suspended or disbarred even in states where withholding evidence is not a crime. (In nearly all US jurisdictions where it is a crime, it matters whether the withheld evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial (i.e., is "material") as it is generally not a crime to withhold non-material evidence.)

by wycy 7y ago

FpUser 7y ago

"Suppress the evidence and move on." How about automatic criminal charge for withholding the evidence?

wycy 7y ago
Agreed. Additionally, open&unsolved cases shouldn't be a metric that's considered a ding against prosecutors/police. Open & unsolved is far better than closed with an innocent person behind bars.
jandrese 7y ago
Who would prosecute it? The prosecutors are the ones committing the crimes here.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Different prosecutors? One possibility would be to make prosecutorial misconduct at the state level a federal crime.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    But those different prosecutors would also be doing this kind of misconduct. This is a systematic issue. They would not be able to sustain the same rate of conviction if they acted ethically.
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      Is that really true? I definitely have the (subjective, not backed by research or real familiarity) impression that Federal prosecutors hold themselves to a much higher standard than most state/county DAs. Regardless, you're right and it can't be prosecutors all the way down. Ultimately if you're wronged by the Federal government you probably have to accept some kind of civil liability. Granted the US government isn't great at doing that either, but I think that's a different, largely unrelated problem.
gamblor956 7y ago
A prosecutor that withholds evidence in a felony proceeding could be guilty of a felony in most states, and in nearly all states would be suspended or disbarred even in states where withholding evidence is not a crime. (In nearly all US jurisdictions where it is a crime, it matters whether the withheld evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial (i.e., is "material") as it is generally not a crime to withhold non-material evidence.)