10 ms·

I've studied quite a bit of criminal justice and constitutional law, but one thing that still eludes my understanding is the incentive structure. Why do prosec

by jMyles 12y ago

I've studied quite a bit of criminal justice and constitutional law, but one thing that still eludes my understanding is the incentive structure. Why do prosecutors seek to put innocent people in prison? What's in it for them?

iamdave 12y ago
Looks great when they try to run for office.
techsupporter 12y ago
A combination of "something must be done!" and "well, even if he's later let out he must have been up to no good to have even been arrested."
jdechko 12y ago
It makes their job easier. If they have 100 cases to prosecute and they can get 95% to enter a plea deal, now they only have 5 cases to worry about. If 5% of those who plead guilty are actually innocent, the prosecutor doesn't really care because it's not a case he/she has to go to trial over.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
I think the most basic explanation is that lower crime rates means fewer prosecutors. Prosecutors probably estimate (and probably accurately) that putting people in prison for certain crimes is politically popular. In some cases, I suspect prison and police lobbies can influence things.
tptacek 12y ago
Conviction rates are a career metric for prosecutors.
- arjie 12y ago
  A striking incidence of Goodhart's Law: (though it's questionable if this was a good measure in the first place) > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Interestingly, even if we added wrongful conviction rates as a disincentive, it would probably not affect the end result. It isn't impressive being an 80% prosecutor. It's much better to aim to be a 95% prosecutor and take the risk of a wrongful prosecution. Go big or go home. I wonder if there's a better way of determining if someone is good at a job. I mean, it is natural for us to like people who do really difficult things, but if many people take great risks, there's likely to be at least one who just happens to succeed due to circumstances. Did he succeed because he's better or because there's a 5% chance of succeeding and he just happened to do so? It seems like he succeeded against all odds, but what if that was just pure luck and it seems impressive because we don't see it as throwing a hundred darts (a hundred prosecutors) at a board and seeing one strike the bull's eye (one with no wrongful convictions)?
- jMyles 12y ago
  Of course it's always presented this way, but do voters really think this way? I surmise that a number of other factors are more important in elections than conviction rates. And even if that were true, why charge obviously innocent people at all? Not charging them won't affect the conviction proportion.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    They don't charge obviously innocent people. In the wrongful conviction context, you're usually talking about someone who had prior criminal history, was associated with bad people, and was in the area of the crime scene at the wrong time. Obviously they deserve justice, but it's not like police are charging random law-abiding citizens.
    - jMyles 12y ago
      > They don't charge obviously innocent people. Most might not, but some most certainly do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misco...
OffshoreGuy87 12y ago
Your question presumes that prosecutors are looking for the truth, right and wrong, innocence and guilt. They are not. Their job is to prosecute. Hence we've seen terrible stories about people prosecuted and jailed for years because prosecutors knowingly refuse to turn over exonerating evidence. Judges are also part of this problem. They are paid by government. Their instructions (Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure) come from government. They have often worked as prosecutors for the government. So their loyalty is to the government. We don't have an independent judiciary. It's been wholly captured by the government. Getting to the question as to why the innocent plead guilty, when you're faced with the cost of an attorney it's often cheaper and easier to take a plea than to fight. The stress, emotional and mental toll of a legal fight are horrendous. And there is very little guarantee that a defendant will win. The deck is stacked against you when you go to court. Prosecutors and judges are not there to have a colloquy about the law, the facts, the issues of the case, nor to debate the motivation and intent of the defendant. The prosecutor is there to win. The judge is there to ensure that the well-oiled machine keeps running and that jurors deliver the needed verdict.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > Their job is to prosecute. I understand, but how did this become gospel?
  - acjohnson55 12y ago
    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system
    - jMyles 12y ago
      Of course I understand the principles of an adversarial system of trials. My question was how did this lead to prosecutors believing their job is to seek convictions rather than justice.
      - slucidi 12y ago
twelvechairs 12y ago
The core of the adversarial system is that the prosecutor and defense are entirely one-sided, and the court acts as impartial referee. The opposite to this is the inquisitorial system where the court tries to find out information themselves.
ams6110 12y ago
Most prosecutors do not seek to put innocent people in prison. Does it happen? Yes, they are people and people are not perfect. Some are far from perfect.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > Most prosecutors do not seek to put innocent people in prison. I understand that. But some do, and they commit horrific crimes of injustice in so doing. Why?
mikeash 12y ago
Because they believe that the accused is guilty. I think it's interesting that you have so many responses to your comment and none of them propose that possibility. Yes, there are corrupt prosecutors, or prosecutors who just don't care. But I think most of them do care, and think they're doing the right thing. The police won't arrest you unless they think you're probably guilty. The prosecutor won't go after you unless they think you're probably guilty. The evidence points in that direction, or else they wouldn't get far. You may be innocent, but they're not working on that angle. From where they sit, you look guilty, and things like exonerating evidence will be seen through that lens, as a way for a guilty person to go free, not a way for an innocent person to avoid punishment for a crime he didn't commit. This is simultaneously reassuring (these are regular, good people) and terrifying (how do you fix the system then?).
- infinite8s 12y ago
  That's the whole point of the system. Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute those they believe are guilty (of course that doesn't mean negligently or willfully ignoring evidence that points toward innocence). While the system is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty, it's the job of the prosecutor to prove guilt.
  - nullc 12y ago
    Of course you're guilty. You were arrested, and almost everyone else who came before me who was arrested was guilty.
authatheist 12y ago
Kickbacks from the prison-industrial complex, of course. They're bribed to ruin people's lives, but that's fine with the prosecutors themselves because they're sociopaths.

by jMyles 12y ago

iamdave 12y ago

Looks great when they try to run for office.

techsupporter 12y ago

A combination of "something must be done!" and "well, even if he's later let out he must have been up to no good to have even been arrested."

jdechko 12y ago

It makes their job easier. If they have 100 cases to prosecute and they can get 95% to enter a plea deal, now they only have 5 cases to worry about. If 5% of those who plead guilty are actually innocent, the prosecutor doesn't really care because it's not a case he/she has to go to trial over.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

I think the most basic explanation is that lower crime rates means fewer prosecutors. Prosecutors probably estimate (and probably accurately) that putting people in prison for certain crimes is politically popular. In some cases, I suspect prison and police lobbies can influence things.

tptacek 12y ago

Conviction rates are a career metric for prosecutors.

arjie 12y ago
A striking incidence of Goodhart's Law: (though it's questionable if this was a good measure in the first place) > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Interestingly, even if we added wrongful conviction rates as a disincentive, it would probably not affect the end result. It isn't impressive being an 80% prosecutor. It's much better to aim to be a 95% prosecutor and take the risk of a wrongful prosecution. Go big or go home. I wonder if there's a better way of determining if someone is good at a job. I mean, it is natural for us to like people who do really difficult things, but if many people take great risks, there's likely to be at least one who just happens to succeed due to circumstances. Did he succeed because he's better or because there's a 5% chance of succeeding and he just happened to do so? It seems like he succeeded against all odds, but what if that was just pure luck and it seems impressive because we don't see it as throwing a hundred darts (a hundred prosecutors) at a board and seeing one strike the bull's eye (one with no wrongful convictions)?
jMyles 12y ago
Of course it's always presented this way, but do voters really think this way? I surmise that a number of other factors are more important in elections than conviction rates. And even if that were true, why charge obviously innocent people at all? Not charging them won't affect the conviction proportion.
- rayiner 12y ago
  They don't charge obviously innocent people. In the wrongful conviction context, you're usually talking about someone who had prior criminal history, was associated with bad people, and was in the area of the crime scene at the wrong time. Obviously they deserve justice, but it's not like police are charging random law-abiding citizens.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    > They don't charge obviously innocent people. Most might not, but some most certainly do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misco...

OffshoreGuy87 12y ago

Your question presumes that prosecutors are looking for the truth, right and wrong, innocence and guilt. They are not. Their job is to prosecute. Hence we've seen terrible stories about people prosecuted and jailed for years because prosecutors knowingly refuse to turn over exonerating evidence. Judges are also part of this problem. They are paid by government. Their instructions (Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure) come from government. They have often worked as prosecutors for the government. So their loyalty is to the government. We don't have an independent judiciary. It's been wholly captured by the government. Getting to the question as to why the innocent plead guilty, when you're faced with the cost of an attorney it's often cheaper and easier to take a plea than to fight. The stress, emotional and mental toll of a legal fight are horrendous. And there is very little guarantee that a defendant will win. The deck is stacked against you when you go to court. Prosecutors and judges are not there to have a colloquy about the law, the facts, the issues of the case, nor to debate the motivation and intent of the defendant. The prosecutor is there to win. The judge is there to ensure that the well-oiled machine keeps running and that jurors deliver the needed verdict.

jMyles 12y ago
> Their job is to prosecute. I understand, but how did this become gospel?
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system
  - jMyles 12y ago
    Of course I understand the principles of an adversarial system of trials. My question was how did this lead to prosecutors believing their job is to seek convictions rather than justice.
    - slucidi 12y ago

twelvechairs 12y ago

The core of the adversarial system is that the prosecutor and defense are entirely one-sided, and the court acts as impartial referee. The opposite to this is the inquisitorial system where the court tries to find out information themselves.

ams6110 12y ago

Most prosecutors do not seek to put innocent people in prison. Does it happen? Yes, they are people and people are not perfect. Some are far from perfect.

jMyles 12y ago
> Most prosecutors do not seek to put innocent people in prison. I understand that. But some do, and they commit horrific crimes of injustice in so doing. Why?

mikeash 12y ago

Because they believe that the accused is guilty. I think it's interesting that you have so many responses to your comment and none of them propose that possibility. Yes, there are corrupt prosecutors, or prosecutors who just don't care. But I think most of them do care, and think they're doing the right thing. The police won't arrest you unless they think you're probably guilty. The prosecutor won't go after you unless they think you're probably guilty. The evidence points in that direction, or else they wouldn't get far. You may be innocent, but they're not working on that angle. From where they sit, you look guilty, and things like exonerating evidence will be seen through that lens, as a way for a guilty person to go free, not a way for an innocent person to avoid punishment for a crime he didn't commit. This is simultaneously reassuring (these are regular, good people) and terrifying (how do you fix the system then?).

infinite8s 12y ago
That's the whole point of the system. Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute those they believe are guilty (of course that doesn't mean negligently or willfully ignoring evidence that points toward innocence). While the system is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty, it's the job of the prosecutor to prove guilt.
- nullc 12y ago
  Of course you're guilty. You were arrested, and almost everyone else who came before me who was arrested was guilty.

authatheist 12y ago

Kickbacks from the prison-industrial complex, of course. They're bribed to ruin people's lives, but that's fine with the prosecutors themselves because they're sociopaths.