erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Jan 24, 2009 12:32:58 GMT -5
Just cuz I watch Law and Order all the time, I wonder about stuff like that.
A crooked Prosecutor trying to jail someone they know is innocent or the sleazy Defense Attorney defending someone they know is guilty, whats worse.
Saying of course that the crime in question is basically the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by the threadkiller on Jan 24, 2009 12:40:13 GMT -5
We did a mock trial in high school one time and I got to be the D.A. I knew the kid we were prosecuting was (mostly) innocent, yet I still went after him full force. Either side would say that they are just doing their job, but I would say the worst in general is prosecuting an innocent person, because their name is still destroyed whether they are found guilty or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Madman Szalinski on Jan 24, 2009 13:04:15 GMT -5
Defending the guilty can be shook off the conscience in time. Justice can still be served. If you prosecute the innocent, then you have the risk of making a terrible mistake you should have to pay for by taking dude's place in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by KStrick on Jan 24, 2009 13:44:29 GMT -5
Defending the guilty can be shook off the conscience in time. Justice can still be served. If you prosecute the innocent, then you have the risk of making a terrible mistake you should have to pay for by taking dude's place in jail. This, I agree with. Even if you testify in the court of law that an innocent man/woman did something that they didn't do, you should rot in prison as well. And not a posh prison... oh, no.... you should go to that fun prizon in Arizona that makes everyone wear pink, sleep in tents, and all the other fun perks. Man, why can't more prisons be like that?!? |
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 24, 2009 14:00:48 GMT -5
Prosecuting an innocent. There is nothing worse in my mind than false accusation or, worse, slander. Not to mention that even if the defendant is proved innocent, that still puts a label on them and people still act like the person did what they've been accused of. I know that from personal experience.
Plus, prosecuting an innocent means they can be condemned, while the real culprit is still running free. How many people have lost years of their life, or their life period, because of the crimes someone else committed.
I don't know, maybe I'm especially sensitive to this because over here in France, there is the infamous case of 13 persons who have been accused of being part of a pedophile network, condemned by a crappy judge after a quick trial, until it was eventually found out that someone manipulated the kids to accuse these people and the accused people were at last proved innocent.
To think that some people could use justice to cause harm on innocent people just sickens me, and that's why, as weird as it may sound, I'd rather take the risk of clearing a criminal than to send an innocent in prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitsunestar on Jan 24, 2009 15:03:54 GMT -5
The more I think about it, it's defending the guilty.
Prosecution is typically always a public-hire job, so the Prosecutor doesn't have a choice in who he's prosecuting against.
Defense Attorneys are (usually, though not always) private businesses, so they could refuse to defend someone they know is guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by CM Crünk is teh 'CRAP! on Jan 24, 2009 15:09:59 GMT -5
I think we can all learn from the Duke Rape Trial, that D.A. got himself in a lot of trouble.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 24, 2009 17:01:07 GMT -5
We did a mock trial in high school one time and I got to be the D.A. I knew the kid we were prosecuting was (mostly) innocent, yet I still went after him full force. Either side would say that they are just doing their job, but I would say the worst in general is prosecuting an innocent person, because their name is still destroyed whether they are found guilty or not. We did one too, but I was the judge. The jury was a bunch of underclassmen that we pulled from Study hall for a couple of days. The charges were DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. The defendant was found passed out behind the wheel a few miles from the accident. The prosecution did their job perfectly, the defense was inept, and even the driver accidentally admitted to driving the car. The verdict was still not guilty, however. The reason is that the defense lead was a pretty cheerleader with big knockers that wore short skirts and showed plenty of cleavage for those two days. |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 24, 2009 17:04:35 GMT -5
The more I think about it, it's defending the guilty. Prosecution is typically always a public-hire job, so the Prosecutor doesn't have a choice in who he's prosecuting against. Defense Attorneys are (usually, though not always) private businesses, so they could refuse to defend someone they know is guilty. Actually, if you find out mid way that the defendant is guilty and wish to drop him as a client, bad things happen. Disbarment is not entirely out of the question, unless you can find some other conflict with your client to cite as your reason for dropping him. |
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 24, 2009 17:08:28 GMT -5
A defense attorney's job is to defend his client and prove the state wrong and a prosecutors job is to put the guilty in jail. So a defense attorney getting a guilty person off is his job, a prosecutor trying to put a known innocent person in jail is a violation of his duty and the law.
EDIT: Also, the prosecutor going after an innocent man is wasting everyone's tax dollars while the guilty man is just wasting his own money.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475 
|
Post by CM Dazz on Jan 24, 2009 19:05:38 GMT -5
Defending someone you know is guilty. I couldn't imagine defending a murderer, rapist, etc, know he/she was guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Harbinger of Tragedy on Jan 24, 2009 19:13:06 GMT -5
Prosecuting an innocent. There is nothing worse in my mind than false accusation or, worse, slander. Not to mention that even if the defendant is proved innocent, that still puts a label on them and people still act like the person did what they've been accused of. I know that from personal experience. Plus, prosecuting an innocent means they can be condemned, while the real culprit is still running free. How many people have lost years of their life, or their life period, because of the crimes someone else committed. I don't know, maybe I'm especially sensitive to this because over here in France, there is the infamous case of 13 persons who have been accused of being part of a pedophile network, condemned by a crappy judge after a quick trial, until it was eventually found out that someone manipulated the kids to accuse these people and the accused people were at last proved innocent. To think that some people could use justice to cause harm on innocent people just sickens me, and that's why, as weird as it may sound, I'd rather take the risk of clearing a criminal than to send an innocent in prison. I was going to go on a lengthy legal argument, but this will suffice. It addresses many of the points I was going to raise So... what he said |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2009 19:41:59 GMT -5
IMO they are equally wrong as both undermine the fairness and the supposed emotional distance of the legal system.
|
|
Gamertag: EKolacny
