In any system there's going to be a certain amount of leeway, were you can go beyond what is normally allowed. The problems begin when people become arrogant an

In any system there's going to be a certain amount of leeway, were you can go beyond what is normally allowed. The problems begin when people become arrogant and abuse the responsibility given to them because it makes it easier for themselves to reach a certain result. These acts themselves are of course awful, bordering on corruption, but we choose to trust people in certain positions to use their judgment and therefore give them the benefit of the doubt. Once in a while something happens, like someone getting hurt or taking their own life. Then it's no longer about trust, but about accountability and therefore the burden of proof has been reversed. The person with the privileges now needs to convince everyone else that the trust put in them wasn't misplaced. That doesn't mean people involved were responsible for what happened, but it does mean they should be held accountable for whatever shortcut they took. In this case we need to ask ourselves: Was the pressure and tactics used by the prosecution in line with the alleged crime committed and did the prosecution show enough judgement in regards to the defendants previous mental health issues or even just as a human being?