Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prosecutors have way to much power. They have power because there are no viable checks on that power.
IMO it should be a crime to fail to turn over evidence that shows a person to be innocent.
In most cases the district attorney or chief prosecutor are elected and need those convictions...especially in murder cases.
This is why electing judges and criminal defense or prosecution attorneys is a terrible idea.
I've seen too many cases go through where the result was dictated from on high, because someone wanted to appear "tough on crime."
Lay people often deride public defenders and criminal defense lawyers in general, but I will tell you this: I've known more unethical prosecutors than I have defense attorneys.
The court ruled against a man who'd been sentenced to death and incarcerated for fourteen years, when the prosecution KNEW he was innocent and had the evidence to show that he was innocent. They ruled for the district attorney on the case, because the case rested on whether the district attorney was deliberately lax in training prosecutors about their responsibility to turn over exonerating evidence to the defense. Five different prosecutors were involved in the case. The Supreme Court ruled for the district attorney because they didn't feel that one case proved a pattern to support the contention that the district attorney wasn't adequately training prosecutors. But as Ginsberg points out in her dissent, which she read from the bench, five different attorneys are the pattern in this case.
There was a case in Texas where a man was on death row and was innocent.
He spent 18 years on death row.
I've been reading lately of way too many cases with scenarios like this and has changed my mind about the death sentence.
The legal system is too messed up to trust that those on death row are really guilty.
As expensive as it may be, life sentence should be the most our legal system gives BECAUSE of the screwed up legal system.
In the Texas case, the DA did nothing after hearing the truth.
Supposedly there should be no shadow of a doubt when sent to death row. In this case they put a man on death row because of what someone else "said" and later recanted.
There was a case in Texas where a man was on death row and was innocent.
He spent 18 years on death row.
I've been reading lately of way too many cases with scenarios like this and has changed my mind about the death sentence.
The legal system is too messed up to trust that those on death row are really guilty.
As expensive as it may be, life sentence should be the most our legal system gives BECAUSE of the screwed up legal system.
In the Texas case, the DA did nothing after hearing the truth.
Supposedly there should be no shadow of a doubt when sent to death row. In this case they put a man on death row because of what someone else "said" and later recanted.
It is a little more nuanced than you present here. I am very sympathetic to the guy but the standard of the law apparently is, a pattern of such behavior needs to be established. Although it did happen in this particular case, it was not widespread. I think the standard needs to be changed.
How can you establish (or refute) a pattern without looking at every piece of evidence for every trial?
I have no compunction or moral reservations about executing those guilty of certain crimes. Some people just need killin'.
But as a judicial penalty in a free society, it's just impractical and it certainly does not have any deterrent effect.
I think it does but only to protect society from the one that did the killing.
Serial killers, mass murders; yes there are people in society that have no regard for human life. Society does need to be protected from them.
But how does a man get on death row based on "accusations" from the convicted killer ? That is not enough evidence to put someone to death IMO but it was for the DA. Makes you wonder about all those other folks..are they truly guilty of the crimes they've been accused of ?
I think it does but only to protect society from the one that did the killing.
Serial killers, mass murders; yes there are people in society that have no regard for human life. Society does need to be protected from them.
But how does a man get on death row based on "accusations" from the convicted killer ? That is not enough evidence to put someone to death IMO but it was for the DA. Makes you wonder about all those other folks..are they truly guilty of the crimes they've been accused of ?
A lot of people get accused of crimes they didn't commit.
That doesn't mean that they aren't guilty of something else. Sometimes the prosecutors just try to get something on someone to get them off the streets. Other times their motivations are less noble. Other times they are just sloppy. Caseloads are huge and often you don't have time to prepare as well as you would like for cases, especially the minor ones.
And the pay SUCKS.
Anyone thinking about being a lawyer should heed this advice:
- Don't do criminal law.
- Don't do family law.
Ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
