« "Drug War Reform: Criminal Justice, Recovery, and Holistic Community Alternatives" | Main | Highlighting through St. Louis the enduring challenges of battling city crime with federal emphasis »

September 7, 2017

Notable reporting on a plea process after wrongful convictions

A help helpful readers have flag for me the latest work from ProPublica and The Atlantic examining how two wrongfully convicted men were treated after being proven innocent by DNA. The full headlines of the main piece and a companion provide a summary of a remarkable tale:

September 7, 2017 at 06:59 PM | Permalink



Dunn thinks that's a good thing.

"A presumption of innocence advantages the accused only, and Title IX requires equity," Dunn wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. "No presumption should be made either way, and schools should engage in an inquisitorial process to determine the truth rather than artificially favor the accused going into it."

Posted by: Title 9, Freedom 0 | Sep 7, 2017 8:11:40 PM

Cal. Prosecutor. The best place to get justice and compensation is with the judge in the case. Motions should be made by the defense, to get all costs and compensation from the assets of the wrongdoing prosecutors.

Immunity promotes a business, liability diminishes a business. The lawyer promoted railroads, internet, telephone companies with immunities. The KKK was promoted and crushed twice, with immunity and liability.

Immature industries need immunity. Mature businesses should face liability.

Prosecution is a huge business and very mature. Immunity is completely inappropriate. Bill Otis sought to justify the immunity of the prosecutor, as part of general governmental immunity. For example, we let government kidnap people and keep them in cages. We let government collect taxes at the point of a gun. Others doing so are shot or imprisoned. Sovereign immunity was based on a psychotic delusion. The Sovereign spoke with the voice of God, Henry of Bratton said of Edward I.

Because prosecution meets all the criteria, it should be subjected to strict liability. However, the massive incompetence and carelessness of these lazy government employees would end government with endless liability for the damages done to thousands of people in a jurisdiction.

I support tort liability under professional standards of due care. Let prosecutors carry liability insurance. If they repeatedly damage innocent people, let their escalating insurance premiums drive them out of the business.

This liability is for benefit of the prosecutors, personally. Immunity fully justifies violence in formal logic. Formal logic has no uncertainty and no exceptions.

I also hope that you believe in the lawyer argument that tort liability promotes safety and product improvement.

The Disciplinary Counsel never enforces the special Rules applying to prosecutors. That favoritism must also change.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 7, 2017 10:57:19 PM

"The state declines to prosecute." Well, where was the judge? If I were the judge, I would have been apoplectic, and I would have posed very difficult questions to the prosecutor.

Posted by: federalist | Sep 8, 2017 1:40:48 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB