3 ms·

Obligatory IANAL. >Prosecutors are incentivized to get convictions, Their entire job is to get convictions. It literally doesn't matter if the prosecutor thin

Obligatory IANAL. >Prosecutors are incentivized to get convictions, Their entire job is to get convictions. It literally doesn't matter if the prosecutor thinks someone should be convicted or not, that's for the judge to decide. The job of a prosecutor is to make as strong a case for conviction as he possibly can. Likewise, the job of a lawyer representing a defendant is to make as strong a case for acquittal as he possibly can. Whether the lawyer thinks someone should be acquitted or not literally doesn't matter.

qingcharles 3y ago
It's actually rarely for the judge to decide except in a bench trial. The other options are: jury trial, plea deal and dismissal. Almost every case ends in a plea deal which is really just between the prosecutor and the defendant with the judge just putting a stamp on it.
function_seven 3y ago
> It literally doesn't matter if the prosecutor thinks someone should be convicted or not, that's for the judge to decide. The job of a prosecutor is to make as strong a case for conviction as he possibly can. It's unfortunate that you're probably right in the de facto sense. This is how many prosecutors view their role. But it's wrong. This is not the prosecutor's objective. Their obligation is to strive toward justice, not a conviction. If a prosecutor has a reason to believe the accused is not guilty, they have an obligation to act on that. To dismiss the charges, to share their belief with the defense, etc. Here's someone explaining it[0] better than I can: > The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one Another good quote [1]: > For this reason, while a lawyer defending a man accused of a criminal offense should "exert all his ability, learning, and ingenuity, in such a defence, even if he should be perfectly assured in his own mind of the actual guilt of the prisoner," a lawyer should never prosecute "a man whom he knows or believes to be innocent." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor#United_States [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1739&context=ulj https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&h...
- mistermann 3y ago
  >> The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. Ah yes, and it is politicians (you know, the people who oversee all of this) obligation to govern according to "the will of the people"...just like we see in movies, on TV, in the trustworthy and totally independent news, in various simulcast professionally written PR pieces after an incident occurs, etc. (Consensus across the board is how you know it's true. That, and: this is a democracy.) Protect "democracy" with all you have, free and rational citizens, it is our most sacred institution.

qingcharles 3y ago

It's actually rarely for the judge to decide except in a bench trial. The other options are: jury trial, plea deal and dismissal. Almost every case ends in a plea deal which is really just between the prosecutor and the defendant with the judge just putting a stamp on it.

function_seven 3y ago

> It literally doesn't matter if the prosecutor thinks someone should be convicted or not, that's for the judge to decide. The job of a prosecutor is to make as strong a case for conviction as he possibly can. It's unfortunate that you're probably right in the de facto sense. This is how many prosecutors view their role. But it's wrong. This is not the prosecutor's objective. Their obligation is to strive toward justice, not a conviction. If a prosecutor has a reason to believe the accused is not guilty, they have an obligation to act on that. To dismiss the charges, to share their belief with the defense, etc. Here's someone explaining it[0] better than I can: > The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one Another good quote [1]: > For this reason, while a lawyer defending a man accused of a criminal offense should "exert all his ability, learning, and ingenuity, in such a defence, even if he should be perfectly assured in his own mind of the actual guilt of the prisoner," a lawyer should never prosecute "a man whom he knows or believes to be innocent." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor#United_States [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1739&context=ulj https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&h...

mistermann 3y ago
>> The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. Ah yes, and it is politicians (you know, the people who oversee all of this) obligation to govern according to "the will of the people"...just like we see in movies, on TV, in the trustworthy and totally independent news, in various simulcast professionally written PR pieces after an incident occurs, etc. (Consensus across the board is how you know it's true. That, and: this is a democracy.) Protect "democracy" with all you have, free and rational citizens, it is our most sacred institution.