Are Prosecutors all evil?
 

The outcome of the Duke Lacrosse case lends credence to the idea that prosecutors are, as a class, evil. A necessary evil, but evil all the same. As one who places paramount importance on liberty, I tend to subscribe to that notion as a prophylactic measure if nothing else. Voracious ambition, evangelism, and the awesome power and limitless finances of the state are a scary combination. If one of my sons were involved in this, after I cuffed him up side the head I'd try to strangle the prosecutor with my bare hands. It will be fun to see if the original DA on the case gets disbarred.

Cue UtahDan to come in and correct my facts.

Are they any less evil than defense attorneys?

I certainly thought so when I worked in the public defenders office.

Most defense attorneys are saints who have taken a vow of poverty to try to save the very poor and wretched. You don't hear much about them on Geraldo.

Defense attorneys truly believe and protect the system whereas prosecutors there seek to violate it all the same. The devils own work as prosecutors, whereas God's angels work as defense attorneys.

Amen Brother Archea.

What about ACLU attorneys? :)

It always warms my heart when I hear a bunch of lawyers extolling the virtues of their brothers. Kind of like a bunch of whores sitting around, complimenting their sisters who give twenty dollar blow jobs because they're just looking out for the working man.

This will sound hokey and hard to believe, but when I worked in the PD office I honestly felt like I was the last bastion of liberty in the criminal justice system. Most of my clients were low-lifes and reprobates and probably deserved punishment for something if not for the particular crime of which they were accused. No one looked out for them and no one wanted to help them and the cops were frequently sloppy or 'creative' in their reports and claims and yet no one cared and the DAs seemed to only worry about win/loss percentage. If the PD didn't protect the rights of these people, no one would and if this class of people was lost to the rights in our system, how long would it be before those abuses creep upward to the rest of us? You don't need evil DAs for this to happen, you only need zealousness, and the DAs frequently have more zeal than they have sense. So even though SU and Arch poke sly fun at the notion, I think we ALL owe a debt to PDs and the work they do (and the pay SUCKS).

Amen brother creek'. Telling it like it is.

My property professor clerked for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart; was a summa at Yale. Could have written his ticket, and was a D.C. PD for twelve years (making peanuts) before going to teach at Georgetown. There are a lot of defense lawyers like that.

Being evil is part of the job description of a prosecutor.

I am grateful for the criminal defense bar and especially for the PDs. They perform an invaluable service. I agree absolutely that it is essential beyond imagination that we continue to assure civil protections and liberties, even to the lowest of the low, lest the remainder of society be caught off guard with nobody to protect them. Thankfully, most lay persons don't have to worry because of the good work of our defense bar. Bless them.

Man people must think I'm arrogant. I would not presume to correct your facts.

I will add the following observations:

Most prosecutors that I know don't exercise their discretion as often as they should. It is an important part of the job to be able to say "you know, I'm just not pursuing that." Luckily, the office I work the most closely with is great in this area though as a citizen and not defense counsel there are areas I wish they were stronger.

The larger the city, the more ambitious prosecutors you run in to. The ones who are really trying to make their bones are tougher to deal with because they are focused on getting the conviction. I don't think they are evil, but some of them have the primary goal of advancing their careers politcally.

Maybe the biggest problem with prosecutors is that they don't have a client. They don't truly answer to anyone. This leads to less than rational decisions at times. They also get so used to winning (because most people are guilty and have no techincal defenses and frankly becasue most people who are represented are represented by lawyers on the court appointed list who are rarely all-stars) that they are a little arrogant and act like they are supposed to win and that the last thing you want to do is try your case. That's okay with me because I learned early never to be afraid to put your case in front of the court. Plus I love trying criminal cases.

I don't have an illusions about doing something overly noble by doing defense. I'm not on the court appointed list so all my clients are at least well off enough to pay me. The main role I think I play is being on the front line of where the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment meet the road. The police in trying to do their job will try to push the envelope and in many cases run over people's rights. If there was no one there to suppress their evidence when they screw up it would only get worse. Cops have to learn the right way to do things and should be punished for overreaching by seeing their cases go away. I have a great relationship with most of the cops I know locally. I always treat them with respect and in many cases offer to give them a copy of the case I cited and tell them how they could have done it right. Most of them take you right up on that offer. As defense counsel I want to give my people the best defense I can, but as a citizen of where I live I want the police to catch the bad guys and do it in a way that the convinctions stick.

I worked with a defense attorney during law school and I came out with a general negative impression of local prosecutors. Overcharge and underplea was their MO as it saved time, money and they still got to count the prosecution. The defendants were terribly afraid of getting locked up for life and they jumped at the first sign of a deal. This was especially prevelant among court appointed cases we would get.

I agree. Prosecutors will lie, cheat, exagerate, ignore the evidence, falsify evidence, mislead, manipulate, and anything else to win their cases. So will the defense attorneys. The poor judges are left to sift through the bullshit.

Thank goodness for prosecutors; without them the criminals would run free while the law abiding citizens would have no defenders.

They are necessary and there are some good ones, but it is troubling to see how many of them abuse their authority.

That is WAY overstating things. People watch too much TV.

Fair but exaggerated point. There are good prosecutors, but if not checked by defense attorneys abusive practices woudl very, very quickly overwhlem the cjs.

I can agree with this, though not being an attorney or criminal, I haven't dealt with them at all, so I'll have to concede that others know more than I.

I just find it interesting that it is defense attorneys - the professional rival of the prosecutor - who tell us that prosecutors are evil, so I tend to believe that they're not as bad as they'd have us believe.

BTW - what did the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse team do that was so evil? Anyone? I didn't follow it because I don't care about Duke lacrosse.

Well I've been in a few courtrooms, too. And I know it's overstating, but I don't think it's overstating too much.

Exaggeration is a great way to make a point. :)

I can believe that an overly ambitious prosecutor will ignore certain liberties of an accused person in order to further his/her career and I feel that is wrong. But as a law abiding citizen, it's more difficult for me to feel badly for someone who willingly breaks the law.

Defense attorneys are needed and serve a good purpose. My opinion is not a knock on them, as they are only doing their job. I just have very little sympathy for people who commit crime.

Look we all put the best spin on things we can. That means accentuating the positive and downplaying the negative in our cases. But look, very few people becomes millionaires practicing law except for the guys who do mass tort litigation and the partners at the biggest firms. For the other 99% of us, only a very few think it is worth while to sell their integrity for the sake of any particular client. Why do it? For the money? Just to win? If you get caught doing something unethical you lose our license. I can't think of any client or fee I would risk that for.

Here's a point Paddy.

Law works because people consent to be governed. I believe it can empircally demonstrated that people consent if they believe that the law will generally be enforced fairly or that punishment is so certain they fear it.

If prosecutors are allowed to run amuk, then the citizens will have no faith in the system. In order to protect the integrity of the system for all, it is necessary that everybody, especially the guilty be guaranteed basic rights. There are very few prosecutors who wouldn't deny a defendant his constitutional rights if left unchecked. However, if we start to believe the system is rigged,we stop following the laws. Why follow? I'll just be ramned to hell no matter what. You will see the lawlessness of Iraq or even Russia where people no longer believe in the system.

Guilty people must go free if the system doesn't do its job.

I agree with this. The system we have isn't perfect, but it's the best around.

Still, I believe that if one obeys the laws, one has no need to worry about a prosecutor bent on getting a conviction at all costs. That's the point I was making, which I'm sure is one that all can agree with.

That is naive to believe simple obedience to law will guarantee you will be immune from the wrath of prosecutors.

All you need is for a law enforcement to "believe" you violated the law, accummulate incriminating evidence and the prosecutor will trust that evidence collected as opposed to your honest declarations of innocence.

Unethical is relative. Dishonest is relative too. Illegal's pretty cut and dry. I don't imagine the avg lawyer will do something illegal to win a case, but certainly will lie, distort, cover the truth, manipulate, use tactics, etc. I'm a little jaded by the legal system recognizing there is no effort to seek the truth only to make the best case possible, generally completely ignoring the truth. The most skillful side wins, which usually seems to correlate more to who has the resources or connections not the truth. Speaking of corrupt prosecutors, check out the corruption between cops, prosecutors, and judges in a small town. It's sickening. But even that doesn't compare to the corruption of a big time defender with oodles of cash at his disposal.

You're jaded but don't have a bird's eye view of it.

The system assumes adverse positions will show contrasts so that a disinterested observer will see the truth. It's better than the French system, and does okay most of the time. Better advocacy usually makes a small difference on the fringes or in maximizing how much or how little somebody gets.

Just as philosophers see different angles, so do attorneys. There is corruption in the system, but usually not how outsiders view it. Your jaded view just sounds like something an observant outsider makes and is really not borne out empiracally.

Again, I can agree with this. I should have been clear that I was speaking more about me than all. I don't do anything that would cause the law to come after me. Granted, it could happen, but odds are in my favor by obeying the laws.

If what you say is true then why are so many lawyers blatantly dishonest anyway?

What is your beef with the French system? I spent a good portion of last summer learning about it and observing it, and I'd like to hear what you think of it from your insiders perspective.

Compare the difference of inductive versus deductive reasoning, an absence of common law growth, the fact that the least qualified are judges, and that the judge is in fact part of the prosecutorial wing.

It's a screwed up system. I want no part of it.

And you know this becasue . . . you saw it on TV? Or perhaps becasue you disagree with what they say, much like you disagree with much of what is said here? Are all those you disagree with liars? Is this just more of you calling them like you see them?

Fair enough. We got to watch a bunch of trials at the Palais de Justice and one in Siena, Italy. Very interesting stuff. The best part is what the avocats where under their robes, which is usually shorts and t-shirts. Would have been even more interesting if we could have understood more than about 20% of what was being said.

I guess what I found interesting is that all of the American students had a preference for our system, mostly because of the reasons that you elucidated. But our professor pointed out that our system is less attractive to the French or Italians because it is less interested in establishing truth, which they is the utmost goal of the European system. At least that is their view. We take a different approach to get to the truth, but it is one that is more difficult to explain to the public.

John Stuart Mill said something to the effect "let truth and error grapple" and that defines our approach.

However, if a judge, who is less qualified, gets a bias, what's to cause that judge to look at other things?

The Civil Law tradition is too pinholey for me. I can't find it here in the law. No room for equity.

Santos' rose colored view of "poor judges" domonstrates his naivete.

What is your evidence that they are?

Are you gonna deny that lawyers aren't the best Bullyewt salesmen in the world?

They have a bullyewt answer for EVERYTHING.

All you gotta do is read this board....obviously.

Lawyers are taught to think, to advocate a point of view and to work people through the labyrinth of laws, regulations and rules.

And show me one job, profession or any position of value where presentation is completely irrelevant.

But yes I deny that lawyers are any more dishonest that the average citizen. If anything, they are more honest because credibility matters.

like I said...a bullyewt answer for everything. You can word the same B.S. a million different ways

You just made my point for me without me having to say another word.