Should Judges and Prosecutors be held liable?

[Ozark]

Should Judges and Prosecutors be held liable and held on manslaughter charges for innocent people put to death in the Justice System?

Your thoughts?

[miko2d]

If they commit a crime and are convicted of it, yes. Otherwise it's collective responcibility of the state.

 In all human endeavours there is a probability of making a mistake.
 In many professions dealing with people - especially politics, a mistake means people dead. It was never different.

 How about holding them liable if they do not convict someone or sentence a criminal to less than a life and he kills someome else?

 miko

[capt. apathy]

I agree with miko.

Btw-I do think negligence or half-assed efforts on the part of judges or council (prosecution or defense) in criminal cases should be a crime.

[AKDejaVu]

I think if it can be proven that the crime was not commited (DNA testing simply rules in this sitaution) then there should be a complete investigation of the DA's prosecution with focus on supressed evidence.  If its there... manslauter would be getting off easy.

AKDejaVu

[SC-Sp00k]

If we cant hold them accountable when some low life scumbag ruins the life of many for a lifetime and walks away with a couple of years behind bars, why should we hold them accountable when the innocent are improperly incarcerated?

There are both competants and incompetants in all levels of society.  Ive no love for lawyers, but they have a job to do as do Magistrates, Judges etc.

The Law is above the people as much as you would like to think it isnt. Ask anyone involved in legal process.

Prosecutions are made in the name of the Good of the People. Not the People themselves.  Its called the Common Interest.

IMHO. Those improperly incarcerated should be compensated. But only the truly innocent.  There are no doubt those inside behind bars who may be innocent of one offence to be unscathed in getting away with a hundred others.

Your common recidivist Burglar for example.  Does 10-20 Burgs, Gets caught for one.  Prosecution isnt strong for the others so he walks on them but we know he/she has done them.  

Can we afford to say he should go free because the one he was caught on has a legal technicality allowing him out from behind bars?

If he didnt do it, is it ethical to hold the sucker cause we know he did 20 others but cant prove it?  Believe it or not, these people are everywhere and extremely common.

The Law has Burdens of Proof as barriers to attempt to stop the innocent from being incarcerated unfairly.  The Law is by no means perfect in anyway shape or form.

From the ridiculous logistics of its initial investigation to the treatment of victims in its courts to the seemingly impossible inconsistancies of its sentancing laws.

I could think of a few magistrates who would be better serving the People by getting the hell off the bench, but there are others in society who love them where they are. Not all of them are Criminals either.

The Civil Libetarian or Defence Mouthpiece will argue the injustices of it all.  The next day it will be the Prosecutors and the victims.

Carte Blanche liberty to attack those who make the decisions will only see them baulk at making them.  Who wins then?  Certainly not the poor hapless souls that are victimised.

[gofaster]

It's called "Abuse of Privilege" and can lead to termination of appointment, disbarment, revokation of business license, loss of public standing, and limited employment opportunities.

Most judges caught abusing their privileges end up doing consultant work of some sort, either as political advisors or special-case consultants to prosecutors in high-profile cases.  In any event, their own professional aspirations end up in the crapper and they're forced to work behind the scenes if they want to stay close to the action.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
If he didnt do it, is it ethical to hold the sucker cause we know he did 20 others but cant prove it? Believe it or not, these people are everywhere and extremely common.

 If you cannot prove it convincingly enough to convict, he is innocent and any statement to the contrary is slander punishable by law.
 The only exception could be if I am personally entrusted to decide on who should be kept in jail without convition - I cannot trust anybody else.
 In the unlikely case I am made a king with all abovementioned powers, you can be assured of swift jailing as soon as yous et a foot on american soil. I cannot prove it but I feel you are up to no good...

 miko

[popeye]

Swisher County Texas may have some candidates:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0820-06.htm

[capt. apathy]

Knowing and proving are 2 different things.  If you can't prove a man did what he was charged on, he should walk.  I don't care how many crimes you suspect he did, prove what you charge or leave him alone.

It’s like convicting someone for speeding because they own a radar detector, so you assume (probably rightly so) that they speed often.  But you need to prove that they where doing a certain speed in a specific place, at a specific time.  Anything else isn't justice.

[Maverick]

The main problem is two fold.

First we depend on a system of juries to render a verdict. They have to depend on other people, like witnesses who testify as to what they saw / heard happen. Witnesses ARE fallable. They are people after all and memory is a tricky thing particularly under stress and when you are not trained to be an objective observer. Most situations happen with little or no warning as far as the witness is concerned and that has a significant impact on their ability to recall what actually happens. That is why eye witness testimony is regarded as the WEAKEST level of proof.

Second major flaw (IMO) is the lack of requirement of the attorneys of both sides to stick to the truth. There is no ETHICL obligation on the part of "officers of the court" (read lawyers and judges) to insure that ONLY facts are intruduced to the jury. Truth is NOT the objective to be sought in the trial. Because of that the truth gets second consideration to winning. Now they will tell you in law school that the truth while not the objective of the trial, will surface" during the trial and the jury will be able to see it. Yeah in a pigs eye.

In my "perfect trial" the two sides would have an obligation to expose the truth, facts and not the sensationalism and theatrics we now suffer through. (Can you recall the OJ circus?) That means if the defense attorney KNOWS his client is guilty he would have a moral and legal obligation to seethat the truth is known in the trial and not try to bury it in a ton of BS or smoke screens. Decisions would be based on facts, not emotions, half backed stories and outright lies that succeed simply because they provide a "might have been" option that did not in fact exist.

Of course this is all just a fantasy.  Most trials wouldn't happen in my "perfect legal system" as the guilty parties attorney wouldn't hide his clients guilt. They would simply go to the penalty phase to determine any mitigating circumstances for the sentencing.

YMMV

[SC-Sp00k]

If you cannot prove it convincingly enough to convict, he is innocent and any statement to the contrary is slander punishable by law.

Its only slander if its untrue. Let the burden of Proof shift and let him prove his innocence

Why arent there more Judge Judy's ? LOL