Even the NYT knows there’s a problem with prosecutors


When prosecutors cheat and lie repeatedly to win convictions, should their office be held accountable?

When a man spends years, or decades, in prison as a result of such prosecutorial misconduct, should he be compensated?

These are not trick questions.

And yet in a bizarre 2011 ruling, five justices of the Supreme Court managed to answer no to both, essentially closing off one of the only ways to hold prosecutors and their offices liable for wrongdoing.

2 thoughts on “Even the NYT knows there’s a problem with prosecutors

  1. In a speech last week about cyber security Obama tried to bully internet providers and corporations into spying on their users.
    The oligarchy (1%), who Obama represents, couldn’t care less about Sony being hacked or our electricity grid being taken down.
    What they really care about is WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, Chelsey (Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden exposing their crimes.
    The oligarchy won’t tolerate anyone throwing sand into the well oiled gears of their war machine. Such actions will eventually lead to the destruction of their empire(s) and they will stop them at any cost.
    Including giving prosecutors a free pass to commit prosecutorial misconduct as long as it’s against the “enemy.”

  2. The conservative view of the Due Process Clause is that prosecutors ought to lie and public defenders should fake it. Both have been approved over and over again by the eminent minds of the SCOTUS, until it befalls one of the anointed. At that point, there is no conviction beyond reproach.

Comments are closed.