Should judges do time for a wrongful incarceration?

Question

Massachusetts has the second highest rate of wrongful incarceration in the nation. Some victims have done over 30 years before being exonorated. Should the inept judge who wrongfully incarcerated someone do hard time?

http://www.nodp.org/ma/mass_mistake.html

Answer 1

No. In an adversarial system like ours many people besides a judge and the accused have some responsibility for a criminal conviction. Thus, overworked or overeager prosecutors; overworked and underpaid defense counsel; careless or unethical police officers; a biased jury; and the one or more appellate courts that upheld the conviction (to name a few) could all have played a role in any wrongful incarceration. Most of the people in these jobs - and you have to keep in mind it is just their job - are dedicated and well meaning. Setting aside foul play such as a conspiracy to intentionally incarcerate an innocent person, the threat of criminal punishment for a mistake would only deter good candidates from taking these positions and hurt the system in the long run.

One other point. I am not so sure that a high wrongful-incarceration rate is necessarily bad. Despite the procedural safeguards in the judicial system, we know that, from time to time, innocent people are found guilty in every court system. This is tragic. What is horrific and inexcusable in a civilized society, however, is when the truth is never discovered. The fact that Massachusetts ultimately finds a relatively high number of people who were wrongly incarcerated may mean that it has a better system than other states, which may convict just as many innocent people but for whatever reason never find the truth.

Answer 2

Why Would You Ask A Question Like This If Judges Base All Of Their Choices On The Evidence Presented By The Defense And By The Prosecution.

Quote From Josh,"It's Not Like Judges Actually Like Locking Them Up."

I Agree With Him, DON'T TO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE TIME!!!!!!

Answer 3

The decide in problem-free words makes a decision in a NON-jury case jointly with a civil case. yet in a criminal case, if there's a jury, the decide in problem-free words translates the regulation for all activities in contact. that's the JURY that makes a decision. So, of there is any "wrongful" conviction or incarceration, that's the JURY at fault, and then, it may also be the legal experts or investigators who discovered and provided data. there are countless which will be at fault, notwithstanding the decide is the least of them. The decide is independent, with out vested activity in both guilt or innocence. The decide in problem-free words translates the regulation and is there to insure the regulation is stated to the letter. So, NO, it serves no purpose to positioned the decide in detention center at the same time as the fault if there is any fault in any respect, belongs on all of the different contributors interior the case. that's the data that makes or breaks a case, no longer the decide interior the case. An allure is received because of recent data which if it were popular on the time, would have led to a unique decision. DNA is a good party. Had DNA data been provided on the time of the trial, the jury would have determined otherwise. searching NEW data after in truth no man or woman'S fault, yet that's YOU that would want to positioned the decide in detention center because of an overturned conviction... Now if the data became available on the time of conviction and became deliberately disregarded, THAN you've a case for malfeasance on the area of the prosecution who deliberately exceeded over data that would want to have cleared the defendant. nonetheless, no longer the fault of the decide... yet somewhat the prosecution and perhaps the investigators who were in contact with amassing data for trial. all of it comes right down to the data provided at trial and each of the human beings who were to blame for the data used to convict or no longer.

Answer 4

Wrongful incarceration is mostly a jury matter. There are many reasons. Inept public defenders, over-bearing prosecutors that lie or omit details, racist or sexist juries, un-educated defendants that are afraid or don't have enough money to effectively challenge the system, or attorney generals with political aspirations just to name a few. So you can't just blame the judges who most times are only sentencing based on legal requirements and court observations.

Answer 5

No...the judge does not incarcerate the innocent convicted person...the jury does. To punish a judge you have to prove they did something wrong...Usually in these cases either the police or the prosecutor acted wrongfully or overzealously.....the judge usualy just makes sure the trial is fair....and other times the innocent is just in the wrong place at the wrong time....and he looks guilty when he isn't. No judges should not be jailed without doing something wrong.

Answer 6

No. Holding judges "accountable" for mistakes they make has been tried in a number of states, including recently in California under a bill called J.A.I.L.or Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. It was defeated. The main problem is that this type of fear hanging over a judge would cause a resistence to ever sentence a criminal. Imagine if you were a judge and everytime you thought about sending someone to jail you thought about how you could be ultimately sanctioned. It would cause caos and shut down the legal system as we know it. This is the main reason that judicial officers have immunity while on the bench.

Answer 7

YES! Definately when it happens two or more times, alarm bell's should start ringing,there should be a body of people set up to keep a close eye on corruption within the court system, to stop this NIGHTMARE from happening to anymore innocent people, but YES, definately if the judge is corrupt, he should be given an automatic sentence to the same amount of time he handed out to his victim's.

Answer 8

Josh makes a good point, and let's not foget that those trials were decided by a jury. Everyone in the jury has to come to the same decision beyond all reasonble doubt. The jury has a duty as well.

Answer 9

You'd have to include the prosecution, too, wouldn't you?

I *do* think that judges who let pedophiles off with a slap on the wrist should have to take the perverts home with them and be 100% responsible for the actions of said pervert.

Answer 10

How could that even remotely be fair? Wrongful incarceration is typically due to police/prosecutorial corruption and defense incompetence. How is that the judges' fault?