This story in the Wall Street Journal is about convicted murderer who spends 15 years working to unearth overwhelming evidence of misconduct by prosecuting attorneys in their efforts to secure a conviction.
This reveals a fundamental difference between how the system is supposed to work and how it actually works.
The district attorney, representing the people, is supposed to be primarily concerned with finding the truth. Opposing him is a defense attorney whose primary responsibility is to mount a vigorous defense for his client and establish reasonable doubt that the D.A.'s theory of "the truth" is actually true.
What happens, in reality, is that both sides take on the role of advocating an outcome.
The D.A. becomes concerned with a conviction more than he is concerned about the truth. In that moment, the system becomes obscenely distorted. We end up with government attorneys fighting the introduction of clearly exonerating evidence because it hurts their case. Damn right it hurts their case. But an ethical attorney representing a search for the truth will acknowledge this and be open to the possibility that they have the wrong guy.
I don't know. Perhaps this kind of behavior should be criminalized. That is my reflex, though the criminal justice system being what it is, I am not sure how much good it would do.
The bottom line is the damage this kind of behavior does to the society.
When people lose faith in the notion that the government's actions are fair, the government loses its legitimacy. The consequences are not pretty. This is just one small example. Congress is another.
No comments:
Post a Comment