Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
There's an argument that this is addressing the crime rate. When innocent people are convicted of things they didn't do, the guilty go unpunished. Perhaps they fall into the system through another crime, but there's no guarantee for that. And if YOUR family member was in jail for something they didn't do, wouldn't you want a DA to admit that someone made a mistake?
The DA investigated the original crime. They made the errors (willful or not) and the fact that this new DA is willing to correct those errors is quite refreshing in my book. Especially in a state who puts more people to death than any other two states combined.
|
I agree that it is addressing the crime rate in one sense. I'm not saying he's doing the wrong thing or wasting time necessarily; I'm just saying that perhaps this should be set up as a completely different department that is handled by Project Innocence volunteers and the DA would only have to review their findings and could also divert some of his time to the crime on the street.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
In most areas in the US the DA is elected. This means that they usually tout their conviction rates. Most DAs pass on cases that more than likely will result in an aquittal because of this. So when the DA takes a case, he wants to win for sure.
|
I'm well aware of this fact and there's no problem with giving conviction rates as a measure of electability, but in my mind, most DA's just go for the conviction rather than the truth only to make themselves look better and this puts undue stress on an already weak judicial system and individuals alike. People often want to blame defense attorney's for people being acquited and so forth, when in fact, people should be looking at the DA's that are in office and clearly abuse the powers that are handed to them. They are often times reckless with their responsibility. There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in this country anymore.. but I suppose that is a discussion for another thread altogether.
If a DA is passed a case that looks like it is going to acquittal, why should he or she get a blood lust for a conviction? The DA needs to take a fresh look at the case and decide if the prior DA was wrong. Instead, the DA will either pursue it with the wrong attitude or simply push down a plea to get some conviction. I don't want to hear anything about "if a person is innocent, they won't take a plea" that's pure bullshit. If the cards are stacked high enough against a person, they will often times take a plea just to get things over with or simply because they can't win against the system. The system is broken with no clear resolution in sight.
I ramble.. sorry.