Reader comments
Wrongful convictions spotlighted
14 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Teaching the art and science of...
- About Utah: Boarder Chris Klug giving...
- Couple pushes for safety improvements...
- Utah Legislature boring but busy as...
- Logan may run parking patrol
- N.J. man seeks to have Vermont land...
- Drug Enforcement Agency deal blow to...
- Is 'nauseating,' 'foul,' 'nasty'...
- Salt Lake County opposes property...
- Las Vegas revises request for rights...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Crews searching recycling center in...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
- Committee will explore new '22...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- View live stream of services for...
- Is technology making us stupid?...
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
In News
Across Site
- Gay rights and religious liberty
99 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
25 - DEA deal blow to Mexican cartel
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23 - Utah takes $171M in settlement
19 - Powell told son he had 'surprise'
18












Sometimes wrongful conviction is still a good faith problem. The prosecutor can be absolutely meticulous and give the defense every shred of evidence he amasses, holding back nothing, and the defense can be competent and still a wrongful conviction occur. We need a change in what the responsibilities of each side are.
It happened recently here in North Carolina that two prosecutors held back exonerating evidence (in violation of the law) to get a conviction. Nothing happened to them!
I don't recall the numbers but a recent review of exoneration by DNA evidence found a significant rate of wrongful convictions (many for rape) and cleared about 20 death row inmates of the crime that put them there. Execution is not fixable. That's a strong reason for getting rid of the death penalty, isn't it?
Bottom line: yes the system is not perfect, but it is one of the best! And until you can create a perfect system where all criminals are convicted and all innocents are released, how about giving our overworked prosecutors the benefit of the doubt?
First, under the American system of justice, it is the citizen accused who is entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt, not the prosecutor ... no matter how much you would prefer that it be the other way.
Second, many times a wrongfully accused defendant will take a plea deal to a lesser charge to avoid the costs associated with funding a defense against a more severe charge -- carrying with it a more severe penalty -- if the case goes to trial and the defendant is convicted.
Paul Craig Roberts has an excellent analysis of the extortionate leverage prosecutors have in his book _The Tyranny of Good Intentions_.
Conclusion: Eliminate Prosecutorial Immunity NOW!
First, I'm not asking the American system of justice to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt. I'm asking that we as 'lay' people be cautious in our judgement of them. I wouldn't have it the other way around, as you presume.
Second, Yes, SOMETIMES inoccents plead guilty (usually to misdemeanors or lessor felonies). But given imperfect evidence, virtually no time to fully investigate all aspects of the case, plus the support of the defense attorney, how can you lay all blame to the prosecutor?
I say get rid of plea bargaining. It would certainly get rid of a lot of questionable practices, and reduce the power of the prosecutor which should in turn help eradicate the abuses that do happen (I'm not saying they don't). At least then these wrongful convictions will have been decided by a jury.
Ummm, actually, they do. Here's a quote from Tim Wu
At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity�say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.
Illustration by Alex Eben Meyer. Click image to expand.
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."
At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity�say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."