A scary thought.
-
JohnSmythe — 9 years ago(June 28, 2016 09:17 AM)
But, prosecutors most certainly do get criticism when they put the innocent in jail.
And, yes, the prosecutors do get lambasted when the case is viewed with 20/20 hindsight.
Agreed. Let's not also forget how absolutely villified prosecutors get if they lose a politically sensitive case. They get all sorts of accusations of not caring about the victim(s) and their community and not bringing their A-game, or favouritism on their part on behalf of the accused and even bribery.
There's also a lot of pressure on DAs to bring charges in cases where they know they won't even get past the prima facie case simply because they don't want to be seen as not caring. There are DA's Offices that will indict people based on what the public opinion is on the subject.
And on the other hand we have cases where Prosecutors get crucified at the press for brining any charges what-so-ever on someone. I can't imagine much joy for a DA in an NRA stronghold brining charges of manslaughter against someone killing intruders on his property, regardless of the particular circumstances of the case. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(June 28, 2016 09:41 AM)
Indeed.
Part of the problem is that "justice" is "political".
The office of the district attorney/prosecutor is a political office, by definition.
So, naturally, politics will seep into the decisions made (or affirmatively not made) by the prosecutor's office.
Some locations have prosecutors that are elected by the people. Other locations have prosecutors that are appointed (by another elected official, like the Governor).
It can be a mess.
Look at the fiasco with Marilyn Mosby in Baltimore with the Freddie Gray case. There are calls for her to resign, to be disbarred, and to face charges herself.
Also, remember the prosecutor (Mike Nifong, I believe) who was disbarred and even jailed (I believe) for the fiasco that was the Duke lacrosse rape (
supposed
rape) case of Crystal Mangum. -
mikeyg24 — 9 years ago(August 22, 2016 06:00 PM)
Sorry I just caught you guy's replies. I kinda screwed up I meant in the context of cinema and television. But I still enjoyed reading your subsequent posts.
Sorry again
Hey! You're not old enough to drink! Now go and die for your country!!! -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 09:38 AM)
As an absolute number, yes, I am sure it's "quite a bit".
As a relative number a percent of all those who have been incarcerated I am sure it's quite negligible. A drop in the bucket.
In other words, 99.99% of people in prison are guilty. And maybe 0.01% are innocent. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 12:03 AM)
Wikipedia says:
In June 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and Northwestern University Law School, initially reported 873 individual exonerations in the U.S. from January 1989 through February 2012; the report called this number "tiny" in a country with 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, but asserted that there are far more false convictions than exonerations.
873 / 2,300,000 = 0.03% -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 02:46 PM)
The evidence was all 100% circumstantial. It'd never hold up in a court.
Why not? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. And it can and does hold up in court.
Many people are under the misconception that evidence cannot be used if it is "merely" circumstantial. That is simply not true.
In fact, many/most cases rely on circumstantial evidence.