Why do prosecutors think like this?

[CBL4]

Here is another all too common case of DNA evidence showing a convicted man to be innocent. Every time I read this we get the standard:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/01/rape.exoneration.ap/index.html

Why do prosecutors and police almost always oppose the tests? If they have done their job properly, it will only confirm it. Only if they have screwed up will there be an effect and that is that an innocent man goes free.

Do they suspect they have screwed up? Is their reputation more important than exonerating an innocent man? What is wrong with trying to find a definitive answer to a man's guilt?

CBL

 

[Tmy]

They oppose it cause every last one of the "guilty" would request DNA testing. AND it aint that cheap. Who do you think is paying for all these tests.

 

[TragicMonkey]

They oppose it cause every last one of the "guilty" would request DNA testing. AND it aint that cheap. Who do you think is paying for all these tests.

I'm sure if the prosecutors are that concerned about the taxpayer's money, they'll be willing to take a voluntary pay cut or give up all those paid government holidays.

 

[Tmy]

I'm sure if the prosecutors are that concerned about the taxpayer's money, they'll be willing to take a voluntary pay cut or give up all those paid government holidays.

Those guys work 60+ hrs with little pay. Shame on you.

And Im sure you wouldnt mind paying extra taxes for all these testing.

 

[The idea]

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

If the judge knows that prosecutors opposed the DNA testing, then isn't that all the information that the judge needs to declare the man not guilty?

(Is DNA testing paid for out of the prosecution budget? If it is, then the judge wouldn't have enough information to declare the man not guilty, but there would then seem to be a systemic conflict of interest that should be changed.)

 

[AmateurScientist]

I'm sure if the prosecutors are that concerned about the taxpayer's money, they'll be willing to take a voluntary pay cut or give up all those paid government holidays.

That's not fair, TM. In most jurisdictions, prosecutors make very little money compared to their private practice counterparts.

I think most persons in the US would be downright shocked to hear how little money many prosecutors make.

AS

 

[TragicMonkey]

Those guys work 60+ hrs with little pay. Shame on you.

And Im sure you wouldnt mind paying extra taxes for all these testing.

My point is, the money is there for the purpose of doing justice. There is no point in skimping...it's why these people are employed in the first place. Objecting on monetary grounds and being willing to risk injustice is like having the highway repair people skip a few potholes because it would cost more. Such skimping defeats the whole point of having a justice system to begin with. If you want to save money, just shoot everyone who's accused of anything before trial. That would save millions, as well as free up a lot of time.

 

[crimresearch]

That' a nice sentiment there TM..it really is.

But I suspect that some prosecutors might feel that the money is there to lock up as many criminals as possible, and spending some of the 'people's' money to help those already convicted appeal a perfectly good jury finding, isn't their highest priority.

 

[The idea]

From the article:

He was sentenced to 13 to 26 years in prison and was denied parole four times because he refused to accept responsibility for the crime.

Maybe he should have accepted responsibility after the third time he was denied parole. Then, using the results of the DNA testing, they could have tried to prosecute him for perjury. ("We punished you because you refused to lie. We punished you again because you refused to lie. We punished you a third time because you refused to lie. However, you then gave in and lied to us. How dare you?")

 

[gnome]

That' a nice sentiment there TM..it really is.

But I suspect that some prosecutors might feel that the money is there to lock up as many criminals as possible, and spending some of the 'people's' money to help those already convicted appeal a perfectly good jury finding, isn't their highest priority.

There could be a vicious cycle here. I remember from reading "The Innocence Project" that the authors concluded that most of the cases where DNA testing exonerated a convicted suspect, the reason the innocent person had been convicted was as a result of overzealous prosecution. I understand that to mean ignoring or concealing exculpatory evidence, and pressuring confessions out of innocent suspects.

Maybe going after quantity isn't the best approach.

 

[BPSCG]

They oppose it cause every last one of the "guilty" would request DNA testing. AND it aint that cheap. Who do you think is paying for all these tests.

Okay, I am firmly on record here as favoring the death penalty.

And that having been said, I will never never never oppose the use of my tax dollars to do a DNA test to save an innocent man's life. I don't care if he's exhausted all his other appeals; as I would not want a guilty man to go free on a technicality, I would not want an innocent man fried on one either.

Virginia overwhelmingly passed an amendment to its constitution on a ballot referendum a couple of years ago, popularly called the "actual innocence" amendment. Briefly, it said notwithstanding the status of any other appeals, a prisoner could always present new evidence of his innocence (as opposed to trying to file an appeal based on a technicality after the appeals period has expired).

We're only second to Texas in frying killers, but we want to make damn sure we fry only killers.

 

[Tmy]

The prosecutors arent the be all end all. thats why we have judges. Ask the judge, if hes cool with it, then it dont matter what the prosecutors say.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The short answer is that few persons want to admit they might be wrong.

AS

 

[TragicMonkey]

The short answer is that few persons want to admit they might be wrong.

That's probably the underlying reason for many of life's setbacks, idiocies, and horrors.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CBL4
Why do prosecutors and police almost always oppose the tests? If they have done their job properly, it will only confirm it.

I think the philosophy here is that there is supposed to be an end point to a trial. Once a person is convicted, his guilt is established and you don't need to look at the case again until he's up for parole or released.

You're not supposed to go looking for new evidence after the trial is over. The time to do that is before the trial.

The alternative is a system where every person in prison represents a continuing on-going trial, where they can have state paid for defenders constantly filing appeals until they get lucky and overturn the first conviction.

So the reason they oppose re-testing DNA evidence is not that they're opposed to discovering the "truth", but that truth has already been established by a verdict.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Why do prosecutors think like this?

So the reason they oppose re-testing DNA evidence is not that they're opposed to discovering the "truth", but that truth has already been established by a verdict.

And that is the distinction between law and justice.

Perhaps DNA testing should be manditory in all cases where it is relevant.

 

[Otther]

Is their reputation more important than exonerating an innocent man?

Isn't the job of the prosecutor to prosecute as effectively as possible regardless of actual guilt? It would make sense, as it'd just be another side of the coin. "Is a defender's reputation more important than putting a guilty man in jail?" The defense defends ruthlessly, and the prosecution prosecutes ruthlessly. Makes sense to me.

 

[The idea]

Isn't the job of the prosecutor to prosecute as effectively as possible regardless of actual guilt? It would make sense, as it'd just be another side of the coin. "Is a defender's reputation more important than putting a guilty man in jail?" The defense defends ruthlessly, and the prosecution prosecutes ruthlessly. Makes sense to me.

A. It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.

B. Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.

Choose A or B.

 

[Tmy]

Isn't the job of the prosecutor to prosecute as effectively as possible regardless of actual guilt? It would make sense, as it'd just be another side of the coin. "Is a defender's reputation more important than putting a guilty man in jail?" The defense defends ruthlessly, and the prosecution prosecutes ruthlessly. Makes sense to me.

No thats not the prosecutors job. thats why they have discretion to drop charges and not prosecute cases.

They are about putting the guilty behind bars. Obvioulsy they believed that this was the right guy. If they didnt they wouldnve had him tried.

 

[Suddenly]

The short answer is that few persons want to admit they might be wrong.

AS

The other short answer is that some prosecutors see their job as putting as many people in jail as they can rather than seeking justice.

So they contest these things even if they would be material. It is one thing to contest DNA when no matter the result there would still be sufficent evidence of guilt, but in a case like this where the results caused the prosecution to move to vacate... just appalling.

Then there is the notorious (not notorious enough) case of Joseph Amrine, who when convincing evidence surfaced as to his innocence the state's attorney argued that there was nothing wrong with executing an innocent man as long as his initial trial was a fair one.

In its hearing on February 4th we heard the Assistant Attorney General declare that the Court need not stop the execution of an innocent person as long as the prisoner had a fair trial.

The Missouri Supreme Court rejected that policy, declaring that a "manifest injustice" would occur if an innocent man was executed. Joe Amrine was convicted and sentenced to die on the testimony of jailhouse informants who have since recanted.The only remaining evidence in the case points to his innocence. 2 witness, one a prison guard, have implicated one of the informants in the murder.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/amrine-released.htm

One of the Justices asked whether in the absence of the Court finding a constitutional violation, the state was suggesting that "even if we find Mr Amrine is actually innocent, he should be executed?" The assistant attorney general replied, "That’s correct, your honour".

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510602003?open&of=ENG-2M4

Which is sick, plain and simple.

P.S. (in response to the post about the role of the prosecutor)Yes, the job of the prosecutor is to pursue justice, not convict at all costs. In W.Va. our Supreme Court goes so far to call prosecutors "quasi-judicial officers" and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the prosecutor has a duty to find any exculpatory evidence (evidence that would tend to prove innocence) obtained by any state actor investigating the case and turn that over to the defense (called the Brady rule).