Does the prosecution have too much power?

If you mention the name Mike Nifong, it is no doubt that most Americans who follow the news will recognize that name. Nifong served as a local lawyer in Durham County, North Carolina in 2006. It is a year when three Lacrosse players at Duke University were accused of being raped at a stripper outside the campus. Subsequent ones are familiar to most readers, but they are never unique. Nifong became a major example of the prosecution's misconduct and eventually was abolished as a result. Unfortunately, he is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg.

Duke's case

In summary of the event, three white college students were charged with black women 's rape. It seemed to be a classic case of white on black racism, Jim Crow style. It was the election year. Durham county is mainly African American, this case soon gained media prestige. Jesse Jackson has lost weight. Al Sharpton gained weight. "New" black panthers gained weight. Mike Niphon of the Democratic Party was forced to reelect and he pursued actively even if there was obviously not enough evidence.

The stripper in question was given a rape kit. Several male DNAs were found, but the results did not support rape. In the subsequent tests, I cleaned up white men at the party. Survey continued, ATM machine timestamped video emerged, and two of the accused showed that they were not at the party at the moment that rape was supposed to have happened. Still ... Mike Niphon slandered the defendant and his parents arrogant as rich white people and hooligans (which changed their way of saying), and he did not even interview the suspect.

Almost a year after media insanity, Duke was liquidated by the State Attorney General who declared them "innocent." Nifong was dismissed and a complaint was filed. He left his job in 2007 and worked one day in prison.

Clarence Elkins

In June, 1998, Clarence Elkins was accused of rape and mother-in-law's murder and six-year-old niece's rape at Ohio State Summit County. When the girl told the jury that her attacker looked like "Clarence Uncle", Elkins told the life imprisonment. The evidence of DNA did not support this ruling, and the alibi supported by Elkins' testimony was ignored as being in another place at the time of murder. Despite expressing doubt before the child's victim testified, the deputy district attorney, Michael Carroll, of the case sentenced a conviction.

Four years later, a 10-year-old child victim revealed the details of the crime. Her attacker Absent Uncle Clarence, she, he said, he It looked like Clarence my uncle. The murderer has brown eyes and her eyes are blue. The prosecution ignored this fact.

When the Innocence project was involved, this incident really became a nightmare. A DNA test was ordered and it turned out that someone other than Elkins raped, Carol's prosecutor insisted on the DNA test result that "the examination was not decided" (in other words). Carol was obviously not interested in justice, but just wanted to keep his "victory" ... and he won the victory. A request for a new trial was rejected and Elkins remained in prison. (This series of events was recorded in video, then American justice Other true crime TV programs).

Elkins was finally cleared at the end when his wife was able to identify the true murderer next to his mother with a history of sexual crime at his own burden. By pure coincidence, at the time of his identification, he was trapped in the same prison as Elkins, and Elkins himself had to provide the DNA (cigarette buttocks) that solved the case.

Too much power?

To the best of my knowledge, Michael Carroll never explained his behavior. Obviously, once he got convicted, he was not interested in justice. It was all to save his record. And Mike Nippon clearly was more interested in re-election than justice. Both are a tragic example of exploitation of prosecution rights.

But they are not alone.

Over the past several decades, I've heard of several stories that have been released from the evidence of falsely convicted DNA. In almost all cases, the public prosecutor who appointed to the prison Resisted Effort to get a new trial, free innocence, and pursue real criminals. Why is that? The purpose of the criminal justice system is justice... Why do prosecutors resist scientific evidence that can not be denied?

The answer is probably too many prosecutors, perhaps most Prosecutors are more interested win More than justice. In the county of Central California where I live, the regional lawyers ran for the reelection in 2008. Every morning when I started working, I handed over the signs of a campaign that boasted over 10,000 beliefs in the first four years. A million beliefs! It is a county county that is less than 10 courts that must be shared among criminal courts, traffic courts, civil cases.

For some reason these numbers are not right. I suspect that his campaign counted all petition negotiations, all traffic quotes, and probably all the parking tickets as "beliefs". The fact that he seems to be playing a number game disturbing me than his bold assertion to hundreds of convictions. To what number of convictions will he give? I am much more interested in knowing that justice has come true. It is because the incident that was not submitted due to the lack of evidence or the act of the defendant may have been justified by circumstances that can not be convinced.

Maintain score

Every time the prosecutor holds the scorecard, I think he needs to look up. The criminal justice system is designed not only to protect innocent people but also to be found guilty, but many prosecutors consider it a target range for high scores. A few years ago, my friend (now deceased) worked as an investigator of the local official security office. He told me that the DA had a tendency to charge expenses Every time case Regardless of the merits, it pointed to him by local police agencies. That is what he told me that you call it "police state" (not his words, me).

Apparently it is true. A few years ago, the local newspaper posted an article describing the custom of "local shooting" by local lawyers. In other words, if a subject is arrested for a crime, the DA will charge as much associated fee as possible in order to fear to plead the accused. If the case is actually tried, it is likely that many or most cases will be dismissed because there are no merits, but if the accused does not know it, if convicted, .

In murder or rape, you may not think that strategy is too unfavorable, but if the crime in question is something minor, possibly innocent, such tactics are best It is on. If such records are not guaranteed, threaten subjects to accept criminal records. In this case the object is a record of victory, not justice. It is a clear case of abuse of power, breaking the whole purpose of the system.

What is the solution?

I do not know what the solution is. In most jurisdictions, district lawyers (or county lawyers) are elected, which is certainly part of the problem. When politics goes into justice, the situation is ripe for misuse. For average foolish voters, a high confidence rate may seem to be good, but those thinking must question the balance of right and wrong. For example, are prosecutors who are willing to dismiss cases where facts are weak? I want a bad guy a stern prosecutor but I am considerate when an ordinary person invades a legal gray area under special circumstances. I do not think there are so many prosecutors.

A county sheriff is also elected, sometimes amock, but if local lawyers are on the ball, their mistakes may slow down. Unfortunately, the ultimate authority in the local jurisdiction is the ultimate authority of the prosecutor himself and he can file charges or dismiss on whim. Also, if he or his office is broken you can badly harm innocent people. In most cases even a judge can not intervene. I know a prosecutor who filed a felony complaint when a personal check she wrote was returned to a 87 - year - old woman. Women have no criminal record and there is no history of fraud fraud ... nothing. Clearly she made a simple mistake, but a claim was brought.

Such threatening tactics are critical. The average person has little defense against fraudulent prosecutors. As with Mike Nifong, a malicious prosecutor can drive an innocent individual into an unbearable situation. People are bankrupted to protect themselves, even if they are innocent, their lives will perish. Marriage and careers may be destroyed, but fraudulent prosecutors carry sails nicely like new fallen snow and will probably do it over to someone else.

Related Photos