4 ms·
Working in the legal system for many years, it was always very clear that these are courts of law, never courts of justice. The legal system requires minor tec
by pascalmemories 11y ago
Working in the legal system for many years, it was always very clear that these are courts of law, never courts of justice.
The legal system requires minor technical hurdles to be passed to "prove" guilt. Experienced prosecutors know that the facts of a case are irrelevant (as demonstrated here, very starkly). Get enough of your check-boxes filled in and you "win" and you're up for promotion based on all your wins (or election to higher office etc.). That's all a prosecutor is interested in (i.e. their own promotion, building a track record of winning).
Justice, I'm afraid, does not get a look in. Sometimes, by coincidence, it may meet, but that's never by design on the prosecution side.
- Zikes 11y agoI never understood why a guilty verdict is a "win" rather than a truthful verdict. It really drives home that as far as the justice system is concerned, we all belong in prison.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoIf I had to take a guess, it's because that'd require more detailed metrics for prosecutors.
- jws 11y agoWhy would you have a trial if you already knew the truth? Edit: I appear to have been overly vague. My point is that you can't reward a prosecutor for producing a "truthful" outcome unless you know the truth to compare with. If you knew the absolute truth then an adversarial trial system would be expensive and redundant.
- Zikes 11y agoWhy would you call it a failure to not send an innocent person to prison?