4 ms·

That would be implying that the prosecutor would prefer taking the life of an innocent rather than having it hurt his career, making the prosecutor kind of a cr

• nickodell 6y ago
  >taking the life of an innocent The prosecutor isn't unilaterally deciding whether the DNA evidence is valid. There will be a public hearing where both the prosecution and defense show evidence about the validity of the DNA evidence, and a court will rule based on that evidence.
  • bscphil 6y ago
    Yeah, the system is in a pretty horrific state when you have to count on prosecutors' restraint for anything. Granted, we are in such a state, but it's beneficial not to just accept that as the status quo.
  • afthonos 6y ago
    You should read up on the rates of plea bargaining, as well as the methods prosecutors use to push defendants to do so, which include: - Not revealing all information they are required to. - Parallel construction (see above) - Overcharging, with the goal of making the plea more palatable than the cost/risk of defending multiple absurd charges. - Lying to you while getting to throw you in jail if you lie to them. As a result, only 5% of federal cases go to trial. None of behaviors these are rare. If your understanding of the legal system is based on popular culture, as most people’s is, it is basically law enforcement propaganda that has little relationship to reality.
    • nickodell 6y ago
      Believe it or not, I was already aware of all of those things, having followed a number of criminal defense blogs. If you read the article and appellate decision which is linked, it says what I just said: >On Wednesday, the appellate court sided with the defense [PDF] and sent the case back to a lower court directing the judge to compel Cybergenetics to make the TrueAllele code available to the defense team.
      • afthonos 6y ago
        Apologies, I thought you were stating general facts about DNA evidence in general, not about this specific case.
• melq 6y ago
  >making the prosecutor kind of a criminal. Never met a lawyer before huh? Jokes aside, prosecutors pushing through cases they know to be unsound isn't exactly uncommon. Many prosecutors are more concerned with their conviction rates than they are in justice, because that's what they are measured and rewarded by.
  • jabits 6y ago
    I think you are wrong and that most prosecutors want to do the right thing, like most working people
    • melq 6y ago
      I believe that's true as well, and I never said otherwise.
    • hutzlibu 6y ago
      Everyone wants to do the right thing. It is just that some think the right thing for themself is to maximize their career progress. And I would not know in general about state prosecutors, but what I know anecdotally second hand, does not sound good.
    • hluska 6y ago
      Sadly, evidence contradicts that thought. It shouldn’t but it does.
    • JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
      "Right" and "wrong" are dependent upon the system and how it rewards you.I would agree that most prosecutors what to serve justice for malfeasance that has been committed. That's different than whether a case is the "right" or "wrong" one to take. If a case seems unclear, and you could spend years working on a conviction that will ultimately fall through, that hurts your ability to do justice for more readily winnable cases. You have to spend the time building a case, do all the paperwork, go to trial, etc. That's opportunity cost. So spending that on a case you have 10% chance of winning just isn't a good use of time. Add that to the fact that conviction rate is a metric used to quantify skill, you're rewarded for serving justice successfully. And that then dictates how much money you can get which can help fund enforcing justice. I believe you're looking at the moral right/wrong, and I don't believe that is the same right/wrong being discussed in terms of how lawyers often choose cases. At the end of the day, lawyers need work and they get that mostly through word of mouth and reputation. You don't really get either of those when you lose cases.
• XorNot 6y ago
  The prosecutor doesn't see it that way. They see it as just "knowing" the guy is "definitely guilty". It's just like, a feeling you know? And a win will look great when they go for re-election (why is that even a thing?). Presuming rational actors in this case is missing the general problem with the system: people very easily convince themselves they know the truth despite how the validity of the evidence changes. Whatever it said initially, that must be right - it's misinformation 101. Once a belief is established it is much harder to change.
  • jfengel 6y ago
    And a win will look great when they go for re-election (why is that even a thing?). You would prefer that they not be elected? That they would be appointed by some politician, with the public having no recourse? The fact is that the public like prosecutors who convict people. That's deeply unfair. But it's also deeply democratic.
    • XorNot 6y ago
      You already elect politicians. If that system is producing people you don't trust to manage the affairs of state, why would electing prosecutors lead to different results?
      • jfengel 6y ago
        Hard to say, really. It's one of those compromises, quis custodiet and all that. I very much agree with you: a government has a monopoly on violence and ultimately we all end up trusting it. Too many checks and balances lead to gridlock. Too few lead to oppression. Much of it ends up being decided on inertia. We do it both ways in different jurisdictions, with successes and failures in both.
• mlindner 6y ago
  That's not how prosecuters work in the US. Their goal is to win the case, not make the "right" decision. They'll spin evidence as hard as they can against the accused.