Criminal justice question for law and order folks

[Sueven]

If a prosecutor in a criminal case has evidence which demonstrates that the defendant is innocent, the prosecutor is legally required to provide the evidence to the defense team. However, because prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity in their roles as prosecutors, they can't be charged for withholding such evidence. As a result, prosecutors can willfully and blatantly violate this law and face no consequences other than possible professional sanctions, which are quite rare and difficult to obtain.

Prosecutorial quality is generally evaluated, by most people, based on very simple metrics: Conviction rates and quantities. This means that prosecutors have an incentive to violate this law, because convicting people makes them look good and they face no serious consequences for violations.

Of course, most prosecutors are decent people who don't violate the law in order to convict innocent people. Nevertheless, it does happen.

My question: If a prosecutor willfully violates this law and thereby convicts an innocent person, should they be legally liable for their conduct? Should they face criminal charges? Or should we retain absolute immunity, and if so, why?

More generally, what do you feel about the fact that those who are charged with upholding law and order are largely immune from legal liability for lawbreaking that they perform in the context of their jobs? Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity and police officers enjoy qualified immunity (which is weaker than absolute, but still very strong).

[Funkmasterr]

If a prosecutor in a criminal case has evidence which demonstrates that the defendant is innocent, the prosecutor is legally required to provide the evidence to the defense team. However, because prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity in their roles as prosecutors, they can't be charged for withholding such evidence. As a result, prosecutors can willfully and blatantly violate this law and face no consequences other than possible professional sanctions, which are quite rare and difficult to obtain.

Prosecutorial quality is generally evaluated, by most people, based on very simple metrics: Conviction rates and quantities. This means that prosecutors have an incentive to violate this law, because convicting people makes them look good and they face no serious consequences for violations.

Of course, most prosecutors are decent people who don't violate the law in order to convict innocent people. Nevertheless, it does happen.

My question: If a prosecutor willfully violates this law and thereby convicts an innocent person, should they be legally liable for their conduct? Should they face criminal charges? Or should we retain absolute immunity, and if so, why?

More generally, what do you feel about the fact that those who are charged with upholding law and order are largely immune from legal liability for lawbreaking that they perform in the context of their jobs? Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity and police officers enjoy qualified immunity (which is weaker than absolute, but still very strong).

I say yes, they should be liable and should be punished. I would say that if the prosecutor willfully withholds this kind of evidence in any case, a couple of things should happen:

1- They should lose their license to practice law.
2- They should face criminal charges which should be fairly harsh, an innocent persons entire life could be ruined because of them.

As to the second part of your question: I think this is one of the bigger issues with our legal system. The problem with giving this kind of power to someone is that they are almost inevitably going to abuse it, and when they do so it could cost someone their life.
Where I think things get a little trickier is with cops. They HAVE to bend/break certain laws that others are required to abide by at times in order to protect people, so it almost has to be an all or nothing thing with them, because how do you judge the grey area in those situations?

Your comment about Prosecutors doing this because they are judged by how many criminals they put away is actually part of a more general issue that touches most working people in one way or another. Once your value/productivity starts being judged by volume, quality/rules start to go out the window immediately.

I notice this on a daily basis in my job, I currently test conversion maps mostly, and as soon as my company started putting a system in place to score people according to how much they get done every month, the quality of those peoples work decreased by 50% or more. The sad thing is the company is pretty much fine with this, because more maps in production = more money (even though it could bite them in the ass down the road) and that is the only thing they seem to care about.

As a society we seem to have confused what is actually important in many cases, and I think a lot of our issues could be resolved by just re evaluating what is more important.

[Homercles]

You're talking about being Nifonged.
The now imfamous Duke Rape case in which the prosecutor blantently went after the students when all evidence pointed to the contrary. He went as far as burying evidence. Nifong has since been disbarred, fined an extraordinary amount of money, and is in the process or has already been sued by the defendants. I don't believe he received any jail time, but his life as he knew it is over.

Prosecutors may have criminal immunity, but they dont have civil immunity.
What kind of jailtime would you propse for railroading a defendant? Do judges hold any criminal responsiblitiy for falsely imprisoning someone? Jurors can be jailed for receiving bribes. I assume Judges and Prosecutors can as well.

[Jice Virago]

I agree with both Funk and Homercles. Lawyers are creatures of money. Disbarment prevents them from repeating such an offense and limits their income, considerably. Civil action attacks their main area of self interest, namely their wealth. Any prosecuter not motivated by greed is generally not going to go down these paths. If we want to talk about criminal penalties, rather than civil, then I think a process of review should be put in place similar to that used to investigate and assign penalties to corrupt judges.

[Sueven]

Homer (and Jice):

Nifong is the exception to the rule. What happened to him is great (in my opinion) but practically unheard of. The country was lucky that this happened in a hugely visible case, because it brings the issue to light, but the downside is that people now believe that what happened to Nifong is common practice, and it's not at all. Mike Nifong got caught because he fucked with high profile defendants who had the financial wherewithal to hire top-notch lawyers and the political capital to create a cottage industry in Duke rape case investigative journalism.

This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves.

The Duke rape case proves the problem. It doesn't disprove it. If it takes 395 days and massive public outrage to get these charges dropped, how can a defendant without any money or publicity hope to accomplish something similar?

What kind of punishment do I propose for railroading an innocent defendant? Assuming the railroading was willful, I'd say it should be a penalty with sentences starting at a year in prison or so. Judges? This probably does not ordinarily apply to them, because they simply run the trial, they don't convict anyone. But if a judge willfully manages the courtroom in a manner which, in effect, causes an innocent defendant to be railroaded, sure, same penalty.

I only think that criminal penalties are appropriate for prosecutors and judges and police officer who INTENTIONALLY do these things. These people should have the right to do their jobs in good faith without worrying about charges like these. It's only when they act in bad faith that I'd like to see them be liable.

Funk:

I agree with you about cops to an extent. I still think that qualified immunity is a bit too much protection, but they certainly should have some leeway.

And I agree with you about the incentives. You're certainly right about it in the commercial context, but I think it's even a bit more defensible there. Your company can claim that their aim is to "make money," and judging people by quantity is what makes them the most money. Your end users might not like to hear that, but it's not totally irrational. The aim of the legal system, on the other hand, is to "do justice." The correlation between "making more maps" and "making more money" is a hell of a lot stronger than the correlation between "put more people in jail" and "be more just."

So the focus on quantity is a problem in both places, but even more so in the legal system, imo.

[Funkmasterr]

Homer (and Jice):

Nifong is the exception to the rule. What happened to him is great (in my opinion) but practically unheard of. The country was lucky that this happened in a hugely visible case, because it brings the issue to light, but the downside is that people now believe that what happened to Nifong is common practice, and it's not at all. Mike Nifong got caught because he fucked with high profile defendants who had the financial wherewithal to hire top-notch lawyers and the political capital to create a cottage industry in Duke rape case investigative journalism.

This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves.

The Duke rape case proves the problem. It doesn't disprove it. If it takes 395 days and massive public outrage to get these charges dropped, how can a defendant without any money or publicity hope to accomplish something similar?

What kind of punishment do I propose for railroading an innocent defendant? Assuming the railroading was willful, I'd say it should be a penalty with sentences starting at a year in prison or so. Judges? This probably does not ordinarily apply to them, because they simply run the trial, they don't convict anyone. But if a judge willfully manages the courtroom in a manner which, in effect, causes an innocent defendant to be railroaded, sure, same penalty.

I only think that criminal penalties are appropriate for prosecutors and judges and police officer who INTENTIONALLY do these things. These people should have the right to do their jobs in good faith without worrying about charges like these. It's only when they act in bad faith that I'd like to see them be liable.

Funk:

I agree with you about cops to an extent. I still think that qualified immunity is a bit too much protection, but they certainly should have some leeway.

And I agree with you about the incentives. You're certainly right about it in the commercial context, but I think it's even a bit more defensible there. Your company can claim that their aim is to "make money," and judging people by quantity is what makes them the most money. Your end users might not like to hear that, but it's not totally irrational. The aim of the legal system, on the other hand, is to "do justice." The correlation between "making more maps" and "making more money" is a hell of a lot stronger than the correlation between "put more people in jail" and "be more just."

So the focus on quantity is a problem in both places, but even more so in the legal system, imo.

I agree 100%, and meant to say the same but forgot.

[Animale]

And yet people want to privatize portions of the criminal justice system to make it "more efficient." Take what's going on now in the system (due to volume incentives for continued employment in the incumbent dominated electoral process) and multiply it when business models and profit become even more directly involved in locking somebody up.

At some point it needs to be about justice and lowering crime rates, not about how cheaply or effectively we can make the mechanism for locking people up. Keep criminal justice in the hands of government thank you very much. I don't want somebody who is only answerable to the bottom line deciding whether or not somebody goes to jail.

Animale

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

My thought is that the prosecutor would be disbarred and once the real perpetrator of the crimes is brought to trial, the prosecutor be tried as an accessory to that crime and all others that were comitted while he willfully stopped the search for the real perpetrator and continued on with his trial.

[Ashur]

And yet people want to privatize portions of the criminal justice system to make it "more efficient." Take what's going on now in the system (due to volume incentives for continued employment in the incumbent dominated electoral process) and multiply it when business models and profit become even more directly involved in locking somebody up.

At some point it needs to be about justice and lowering crime rates, not about how cheaply or effectively we can make the mechanism for locking people up. Keep criminal justice in the hands of government thank you very much. I don't want somebody who is only answerable to the bottom line deciding whether or not somebody goes to jail.

Animale

link please? Are we talking about privatization of penal facilities* or of the actual system that decides ones guilt and punishment, I can see the former (as our government loves to contract stuff along that line), but the latter would be over the line.



* yes, that one made me snort

[Animale]

I was thinking of the private prisons, but even those I have issues with as once they become too pervasive the political and monetary pressure on the prosecution system to provide bodies for the beds becomes too large. The point shouldn't be incarceration, it should be crime prevention - which is possible for much cheaper than incarceration I believe.

Animale

[Noysyrump]

The rule of law is worthless if the laws do not apply to everyone. From king to serf. If anyone is allowed imunity, the whole system will break down.

So when I see cops running red lights or speeding without code 4, but because they dont want to wait. It really upsets me.

[Ashur]

The point shouldn't be incarceration, it should be crime prevention - which is possible for much cheaper than incarceration I believe.

Agreed, but it's also pretty much impossible to prove, as there's no concrete X$ = Y less criminals, so that belief will have to remain a belief. Trends can be influenced by so many factors, from "What constitutes a criminal act" to the punishment and incentives for committing the act. If the benefits outweigh the potential punishment, or if environmental factors play into it (as they most always do, and I think this is what you'd like to see addressed - try to attack the social issues that make crime appealing) then the crime will be more likely to be committed.

Back on topic...

It's tough nut. Theoretically, prosecutors should be as susceptible to the law as the ones they are prosecuting. That's the whole idea behind "equality", but you also don't want them afraid to prosecute criminals for fear of being sued by every swinging dick they have to try to prosecute. I'd be curious of Sirensa's views on this matter as she is, I believe, a prosecutor.

[Wulfran]

I can see a certain logic in promoting financial/civil penalties for those prosecutors who engage in this behaviour but is that enough? Going back to the Nifong example, what would those boys have faced if found guilty? They would have lost their freedom for years. What kind of monetary value can you assign to that? How can this type of action have a less serious consequence than any other type of felony involving unlawful confinements, corruption and abuse of public trust? These lawyers still have to have the intent to cover up or withhold proven against them as part of their own due process, so its not like we're tipping the scales against them. Honestly I don't see the rationalization for them having this immunity from criminal action: is it supposed to be some sort of BS balancing for the fact that a defense lawyer can't testify against a client he/she knows is guilty because of the lawyer-client priviledge?