Should prosecutors or witnesses be jailed for wrongful convictions? (illegal, attorneys, accuse)
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.
I was reading about Anthony Ray Hinton and got to thinking about this question. If there's no retribution for prosecutors, judges and witnesses who lie and cheat their ways to getting a conviction, there's really no reason for them to change their ways.
Should there be legal consequences for Judges and Prosecutors and even witnesses who act in bad faith while trying or participating in a trial?
Should there be legal consequences for Judges and Prosecutors and even witnesses who act in bad faith while trying or participating in a trial?
Anybody in LE of the judiciary who plants evidence, willfully withholds evidence etc. should be subject to a mandatory sentence double that of their victim.
Witnesses become an issue because determining if they are lying about something they may think they saw becomes very problematic.
If we look at the Ferguson incident it was stirred up by lies. There were so many witnesses that spread what turned out to be a rumour that Brown was on his knees and had his hands up when Wilson shot him down. The people, the media all ran with the lie and turned an unfortunate mistake by a young man into a national incident. When those supposed eye witnesses were further questioned they all backed down and told the truth.
A court and jury deals in facts, testimony and evidence. If evidence is tampered with, if a witness lies there are laws against that and in some cases could result in a mistrial.
Our court system is not perfect and mistakes do happen but jailing or fining those who were involved in a false case wouldn't work unless it was later found out they gave false testimony etc.. on purpose to get a conviction.
If someone is found in contempt of court they can be put in jail as a consequence.
Innocent people can not be railroaded but ti does happen and it is often found out later on.
I was reading about Anthony Ray Hinton and got to thinking about this question. If there's no retribution for prosecutors, judges and witnesses who lie and cheat their ways to getting a conviction, there's really no reason for them to change their ways.
Should there be legal consequences for Judges and Prosecutors and even witnesses who act in bad faith while trying or participating in a trial?
Judges? No. They must act on the evidence presented. If the evidence is untruthful, that is technically beyond their ability to know that.
Prosecutors and witnesses? Depends I guess.
Technically, a witness who lies while under oath has committed a crime. Perjury. I don't know if it's a felony in every states, but it is in some. So there is already somewhat of a penalty. I'm not entirely sure if prosecutors are held to that same standard. I suppose again, similar to a judge, they just present information. If a witness lies without their knowledge, it's within their authority to use that lie. Now, perhaps a charge of some kind of corruption could be necessary if a prosecutor gets someone to lie, and especially if they pay someone to lie. Would that be obstruction of justice?
So indeed, there are actually punishments already justified for these types of things. I don't know how enforced they are, but you need not create new laws or punishments; simply enforce the existing ones.
I was reading about Anthony Ray Hinton and got to thinking about this question. If there's no retribution for prosecutors, judges and witnesses who lie and cheat their ways to getting a conviction, there's really no reason for them to change their ways.
Should there be legal consequences for Judges and Prosecutors and even witnesses who act in bad faith while trying or participating in a trial?
There should be jail and consequences for anyone who knowingly plants or withholds evidence. Just like police who overstep their bounds and do a criminal act by beating a civilian as well as a woman who claims to be raped but really wasn't.
No; not unless their is misconduct. which is on the books as criminal. Its the jury or judge that finds guilt or innocents. Its like asking if defense attorney should go to jail for poor defense. Jury have only what is presented by either side to go by; justice is not perfect as most things. That is why the standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt
No; not unless their is misconduct. which is on the books as criminal. Its the jury or judge that finds guilt or innocents. Its like asking if defense attorney should go to jail for poor defense. Jury have only what is presented by either side to go by; justice is not perfect as most things. That is why the standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt
But if you're a prosecutor who knowingly drags someone who didnt do it in front of a jury, you have to hold that guy accountable. A lot has to happen to convict someone who's not actually guilty of anything, a lot of people need to be held accountable.
There has to be a way to hold those prosecutors and law enforcement that are corrupt responsible for their actions. At the very least, they should lose their jobs (and pensions) if at any point in time they are found to have acted in an illegal manner.
However - as much as I would like to see those same corrupt prosecutors and/or law enforcement put in prison if or when they are found to have impacted a conviction based on illegal acts:
It is important to note:
A prosecutor takes a case to trial
A judge administrates trials
And a conviction is the result of a JURY verdict.
That's right - a jury is the ultimate safeguard against corruption within the system. Having 12 people that have nothing else better to do than sit on a jury decide the fate of another human being is an inherent problem. Especially when the average juror has little or no criminal legal experience aside from the time they spend on a jury.
Another issue is lack of funding in cases where an innocent person could be represented by a public defender that is underpaid, lacks the resources to call in expert witnesses for the defense and is up against the full power of the state which has more resources and ability to prosecute a case.
But starting with the jury system. Instead of 12 clowns that have nothing else better to do than sit on a jury (while acting like self proclaimed experts) and decide the fate of another human being based on a combination of how they feel, their own subjective perceptions and how much 11 of them get bullied by the foreman during deliberations.
Assuming that an accused person actually has a public defender with the same resources as the state:
A more efficient juror system (of 12 jurors) would have to be based on the following line-up.
(12)
3 retired judges that serve part time as jurors
2 retired / former prosecutors
2 retired / former defense attorneys
2 actual peers taken from the general population as jurors are currently selected
3 current and active experts in fields related to the criminal case (ballistics, DNA, forensics, etc) that occasionally get called in for jury duty based on their field of expertise as it relates to a case going to trial.
A total of 12 - as listed above.
And that would solve and/or ensure that similar wrongful convictions are less likely to occur.
A more efficient juror system (of 12 jurors) would have to be based on the following line-up.
(12)
3 retired judges that serve part time as jurors
2 retired / former prosecutors
2 retired / former defense attorneys
2 actual peers taken from the general population as jurors are currently selected
3 current and active experts in fields related to the criminal case (ballistics, DNA, forensics, etc) that occasionally get called in for jury duty based on their field of expertise as it relates to a case going to trial.
A total of 12 - as listed above.
And that would solve and/or ensure that similar wrongful convictions are less likely to occur.
Nice in theory, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that would be more fair.
With the exception of the two actual peers, and maybe the experts, the rest of the group is all attorneys. Nothing against lawyers, but they're most likely to be a fairly tight group, and it would be very difficult to eliminate bias, especially in smaller communities.
I think even the former defense attorneys may be biased in favor of the prosecution, as they've doubtlessly had to defend people they knew were guilty, and might be jaded.
Prosecutors should go to jail. They do not fully care about the truth, only what story they can tell a jury. A district attorney has far more resources available to him to tell his story then the average innocent man can provide for himself to prove his innocence
Prosecutors need to show results so they can campaign for re-election.
District attorney's, Judges = Politicians
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.
