The only explanation, as far as I can see, is that most prosecutors are filth.

When I hear the monstrous Nancy Grace commenting about “even some defense attorneys” being decent, I recall the number of times she was censured by the Georgia bar for withholding evidence from defense. Not to mention how she drove a woman on her show to commit suicide, and how she’s never yet apologized to the Duke Lacrosse team defendants.

I repeat: scum.

There are also restrictions on defence lawers. They are not allowed to lie to the court. If a defendant cofesses to them they are not allowed to enter a not guilty plea. Either they withdraw from the case or they enter a guilty ple and try for a reduced sentence. With this sort of restriction on them, the prosecutors are less likely to adopt a win at any cost attitude. Also a lwer who prosetes one case may be defending the next. There is klless identification with the state by the prosecutors.

I am also stunned when someone waves a confession around as irrefutable proof that the defendant did it. While it’s true that arrestees have a terrible time keeping their mouths shut, it’s equally true that police interrogation techniques have been repeatedly proven to elicit false confessions. Law enforcement is one of the few professions where dishonesty is actively cultivated in its practitioners. You can’t tell me that you can teach a cop that it’s ok to lie to a suspect to con him into a confession and then expect him to tell the truth when he’s questioned about his own behavior.

The concept of finality breaks down with the merest examination, not just in criminal cases, but in all cases. Punishing the innocent is wrong. It is more wrong than having the guilty go free. That’s why we have such platitudes as “Better to let a guilty man go free than to punish the innocent.” But these things just show how hollow those words are, and that the ‘justice’ system doesn’t provide anything of the sort. It’s a blame and punishment system, and all it does is find someone to take the blame and punishment, and apparently if they actually get the guilty guy, then Hey! It’s a bonus!

Anyone who could make a quote like the one in the post should be forfeiting their status as a citizen of humanity.

Anyone think that the Viking Blood Eagle should be available for the most extreme ethical and criminal issues committed under authority?..

I believe the death penalty should be reserved solely for politicians and others who weild state authority in a corrupt manner.

For the plebs, lethal injection and the firing squad (both fast and painless if done right) only for crimes that are caught on tape, witnessed by half a dozen credible witnesses, etc.

For the patricians and politicians: crucifixion, burning at the stake or hanging for any felony committed under the color of authority.

Whose with me?

Not because I’m opposed to the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, but because I believe our legal system is corrupt and inept and cannot be trusted with a death penalty.

As to the politicians, etc., well nobody FORCES you to be one so it’s voluntary IMO.

Rape is such a heinous crime that I think it’s imperative they do DNA testing on every accused to make sure they have the right guy. Then, once they’re sure, they can frog-march his ass out the back door and put a bullet in him.

DNA can only prove innocence in some cases, and it can never prove guilt in and of itself. In the case of rape where a condom was used, odds are that DNA would not be there.

Of course, the simplest solution to this problem is to give the falsely accused a legal right to order the government to convene a grand jury against their accuser and their witnesses. If someone is falsely accused, then the person who made the complaint, and those that supported their claim, should automatically be investigated for perjury.

You’re wrong about something else. There is a crime that is even worse than rape, and that is equally common: falsely accusing someone of it. The mere act of falsely accusing a man of rape can go a long way to ruining his reputation as most women will unquestioningly support his accuser and many men will go along with it too.

I would disagree. IMO I can’t think of many crimes, other than murder, that are more heinous than rape. I’m a firm believer in the death penalty, my only problem is I don’t have a lot of faith that there are only a few prosecutors who use their positions and case loads to enhance their political futures viability.

There is no reasonable argument against the truth. I guess the key word here is ‘reasonable’. People’s lives are being spent to further political agendas- bureaucratic prosecutors and cops are just out to complete a job, not find the truth. Assholes.

Any one of us could be on the wrong end of this.

#Tonkin42,
Rape is a serious crime, worse than common asault but not in the same class as maiming or torture, let alone murder. Despite thinking that some cases deserve it, on ballance I oppose the death penalty bor even the worse cases of murder. Without hesitation I will oppose it for any lesser crime than murder.

Hmmm…those words don’t sound right. I’m thinking, maybe, the state doesn’t want to be found wrong (and they don’t really care about the victims).

Yes, that sounds right now.

“There’s also the idea that you want finality for the victim’s sake,” Mr. Carr said. “If someone else’s semen was found at the crime scene, we’d have to talk to the victim’s family about whether the victim was sexually active.”

I’ve seen countless feminists make this argument as well. Rape is truly an issue on which much of the left is as bad for a napoleonic guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality as much of the right is on other issues.

Character issues, like serious promiscuity, are issues that the defense has a legitimate right to exploit to bring the victim’s credibility into doubt. The prosecutor doesn’t like the notion that the defense could easily portray his client–errrr victim–as a homewrecker or something like that.