I mean if there is a doubt and they still prosecute, should they be suspended or fined if they are wrong?
A lot of this is coming up with DNA these days
2007-05-15 07:44:47 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I believe that prosecutor should pay a price only if they are flagrantly wrong. There should be know penalty for getting it wrong.
I am from Oklahoma City and the DA Bob Macy convicted an innocent man who was cleared twenty years later by DNA. Although I have the deepest sympathy for the apartment maintenance man who life was ruined I believe that Macy acted in good faith and a normal person would have felt that he was guilty. Under that circumstance; he should not be held accountable.
The Duke case was a different ball of wax; he knew they were innocent but went after them for political gain. He should not only pay the heavy cost that their parents had to pay for legal bills but he should be subjected to the same prison sentences that the Lacrosse players faced.
The scary part of this case is that it severely hurt some of the families financially they were able to hire the best counsel. If this had happened to someone of an average income they would be in prison.
2007-05-15 07:54:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Prosecutors don't convict anyone. That decision is made by a judge or jury. If the evidence is there to satisfy those folks beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is doing his/her job. On the other hand, if a prosecutor withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense or in some other way manipulates evidence to obtain a conviction, they can and should be prosecuted and disbarred (think Duke Lacrosse case).
2007-05-15 08:08:05 · answer #2 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There are several individuals in the production line and any one of them may have overlooked some vital evidence of put forward misleading facts. Which one of them would you blame? Where a vital evidence is withheld either by a police officer or a lawyer, then the person concerned is dealt with through disciplinary proceedings and in extreme cases could be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Where a prosecutor is simply doing a job conscientiously, then he or she does not deserve to be punished. Where a prosecutor in court does feel on reasonable grounds that there is a problem of this kind, then he or she has to check with a superior before abandoning a case. It is not always a matter of personal choice.
2007-05-15 07:55:40 · answer #3 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there have been people who've gotten a lump sum after being released from a wrongful conviction, even though it is not because of the fact they have been wrongfully convicted. it is because of the fact there became into some egregious habit on the area of the government. as an occasion, if the prosecutor had possession of exculpatory info and did not turn it over. people who're convicted, and then the conviction is over became, are not getting repayment
2016-11-04 00:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the job of prosecuters to prosecute - it is up to a judge or jury to convict someone. There is almost never a completely air tight case, unless someone confesses, and sometimes not even then - so to suggest that a prosecuter shouldn't prosecute someone just becuase there is doubt about the person's guilt?!? Of course they shouldn't have to pay for doing their job!!!
2007-05-15 07:48:45 · answer #5 · answered by Wondering 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only if the Prosecutor is found guilty of criminal misconduct.
Criminal court is not about who is right or wrong. It is not about true or false. It is about proving a case or not proving a case. If someone is acquitted it does not mean he did not commit the crime. Just because someone is convicted it does not mean he committed the crime.
.
2007-05-15 07:53:42 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not personally if they acted in good faith. But people who are wrongfully convicted shoulr be compensated for loss of reputation, leagal expenses and jail time by the jurisdiction that prosecuted them.
2007-05-15 07:53:11 · answer #7 · answered by mr_fartson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes - if they had reason to believe they were wrongfully prosecuting someone, like in the duke case, then they should have consequences...
not just some doubt though...like a lot of doubt...
2007-05-15 07:49:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should. The whole court system could be held accountable for thier actions. This would ensure fair justice. Currently the system goes on the who cares if your innocent ideology give me your money your guilty.
2007-05-15 07:52:46 · answer #9 · answered by Bud W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they need the freedom to prosecute vigourously and without worrying about consequenses.
I think the Defending lawyers should be punished if they fail to defend an innocent person.
2007-05-15 07:47:46 · answer #10 · answered by TheEconomist 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋