[Mind-numbed Robot]

Prosecutors originally opposed DNA testing for Doswell, but a judge ordered it.

A problem with our system is the adversarial nature of prosecutor versus the defense as opposed to seeking the truth, no matter what it might be. In this case, as in many others, the prosecutor had more interest in protecting his side than in the truth or the life of the person wrongly convicted. Our system pits lawyerly skills against each other and truth is often the loser.

[Wolfie]

Prosecutors should be forbidden from running for any other public office. Then the truth, rather than padding their record, might take precedence.

[TheOtherOne]

A problem with our system is the adversarial nature of prosecutor versus the defense as opposed to seeking the truth, no matter what it might be. In this case, as in many others, the prosecutor had more interest in protecting his side than in the truth or the life of the person wrongly convicted. Our system pits lawyerly skills against each other and truth is often the loser.

I have that same problem with the system. It works fine for me in civil litigation. In criminal cases I have often thought there should be a Third party, a neutral party, representing neither the prosecution or the defense, but to bring forward additional facts. I know it would be costly, but I think, as you noted, our current adversarial system does not seek out truth...it seeks victory.

[PositiveCogins]

your post #8 is dead on.
This happens way to often. In 18 years where is this
prosecutor now? A judge.

[spetznaz]

The prosecution is ALMOST NEVER after the truth. Their main impetus is to acquire a conviction. Same thing for the defence by the way ....their main objective is to secure a not-guilty verdict for their client, or at the very least a reduced sentence or plea bargain. The whole aspect of a person being innocent really doesn't hold much weight in the legal system. To be honest with you, in a court of law it is far better to have a potent defence team (with crack lawyers who can charm the hiss from a snake) rather than being innocent. Innocence alone will get you thrown in the slammer if you come up against a competent prosecutor, while you can be as guilty as day-old sin and still waltz your way outta gaol. Just as OJ.

In essence all the prosecution normally cares about is a guilty verdict, and hence they will strive to block testimonies and evidence that might get the guy off. And all the defence wants is the inverse, and thus they will do their best to get their guy off. Things like true innocence and such are for fools and martyrs when it comes to courts of law (on Earth that is). Give me a crack team of lawyers anyday! There are few things as bad as knowing you are innocent and yet be inside a cell. I think that must be worse than death even.

[Tirian]

Excellent point. Throw in a small number of police who sometimes "finesse" the evidence - we had a number of state police investigators (I remember some of them testifying before grand juries I was part of) go to jail for manufacturing evidence in a large number of cases. At least there was a "negative feedback" loop in that case; prosecutorial misconduct seems to be harder to punish.