Prosecutorial misconduct

[slamlander]

An article on the LA Times brings up the case of a man wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife. The comments are here. This is a case, one among very many, that argues against the Death Penalty.

In short, this is the case of a prosecutor so eager to crank up his ‘win’ record that he sent the wrong man to prison, fully knowing that he was the

Comments

[desertrat66]

Just recently dealt with a similar case with a happier ending. The defendant was without a doubt a scumbag who deserved the sentence he already had looming over his head (No Death Penalty but he'll probably never be free again), but then the prosecutor decided to try to pile on. Trouble is the digital evidence indicated that there was no way he could have perpetrated the crimes as he was in a holding cell at the time.

Prosecutor is facing jail time for his actions and the evidence (thanks to digital footprints) is damning.

[wisedonkey]

I've always felt that prosecutorial shenanigans should be met with an eye-for-an-eye approach. If they ignore exculpatory evidence to send a man away for 25 years, the prosecutors should spend 25 years in prison.

Same goes for the lawmakers. If they pass an unconstitutional law that is later overturned, they should have all their personal property seized, their businesses shutdown, any and all pets shot as they watch, and then sent to prison for the remainder of their lives. Hey, the constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it should carry a sentence harsher than any other law on the books.

[pecosdave]

I like your Code of Hammurabi approach. I'm not eye-for-an-eye on everything day to day, but when you get to official levels I'm with you. Personally I think everyone who voted yes on the recent detention bill needs to be arrested. I know that won't leave many running the show, but I don't mind, we need to re-fill those seats anyways.

I agree with you.

[nolawitch]

I used to be in favor of the death penalty too when I was young and stupid. I naively thought that people didn't get convicted unless they were guilty

I have always been strongly against the death penalty

[tomo2k]

Precisely because misconduct of this kind and others is certain to occur in any judicial system. No verdict is ever completely sound, and it is indeed better to let a guilty man go free than to execute an innocent.

Unfortunately this kind of case severely burdens my liberal tendencies, as in the moment of reading about this case I really would have liked to see this prosecutor hanged.

I await the prosecutor (now judge) being arrested and tried for contempt and deliberately perverting the course of justice. If guilty, then I agree that the sentence should match that which the victim has already suffered, plus a civil case against his person for restitution.

I am glad to read from Desertrat that at least some of these scumbags are being prosecuted - judges and prosecutors clearly need reminding that they are not above the law, they too are subject to it.

That's the difference between oligarchy/dictatorships and republics.

I'm not against the death penalty.

[pecosdave]

I am however against false prosecution, and it's entirely too prevalent. I think the fix is when a prosecutor is found guilty of the incredibly common practice of covering up or manufacturing evidence to get someone locked away they automatically get whatever sentence they were arguing for in the case. Not the sentence that's granted, the one argued for.

Locking up an innocent person for the simple purpose of getting an atta-boy is as horrible of a crime as the one on trial. I think similar penalties should exist for cops who make up their own laws or use "obstruction" laws to cover arresting anyone they feel like.

I know the volume of people and cases makes it easy to lose perspective on right and wrong, but our courts are something sacred, and when they're played with in this manner it's sacrilege.

Re: I'm not against the death penalty.

[nolawitch]

First of all, courts are not sacred. They are secular for a reason. If you put them in the same realm as religion, then nothing more than faith is required to trust and believe in them. Is that really how you want a secular government body to work, on faith where no facts or concrete reality is required

[pecosdave]

If you'll notice I was referring to the corruption as the problem, and yes I threw in some proposed fixes. The vision of what our laws and courts are supposed to be is what I referred to as sacred, not the people who are running it or the abuse it's endured