What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
106 Comments
- BerateBirthers, on 11/06/2009, -2/+103At the minimum, the prosecutors deserve twice the punishment the victims got.
If prosecutors are afraid of being sued, DON'T FRAME PEOPLE. - Tarkaan, on 11/06/2009, -0/+75I'm disgusted this is even a question.
FTA: Sanders says his clients have not admitted to any wrongdoing. They haven't admitted or denied that they framed two men for murder. Instead, they are claiming that their guilt doesn't matter, that it was legal either way. - aresef, on 11/06/2009, -1/+74I was listening to this story on NPR the other day. This is insane. These guys lost some of their best years of their life to not just a mistake, but egregious, intentional, malicious negligence. They deserve to sue the bastards and win.
- Cornelp, on 11/06/2009, -0/+46Mejogid, I understand your point, but:
"they can't be held responsible for inaccuracies in what they say because it's their job"
Its their job to make sure they bring proper evidence to the table.
Its NOT their job to mess with the evidence. They should be held liable for forcing FALSE evidence (knowingly)... - MonkeyOverlord, on 11/06/2009, -7/+44""If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit," explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind."
One day we'll catch up to Sharia and the Old Testament legal codes which actually not only outlaw this behavior, but do so in very harsh terms as a protection of the accused. In fact, under the Old Testament law, perjury and false prosecution (essentially the same thing under the Mosaic Law) was punishable by the sentence for the alleged crime. Claim an innocent man is a murderer while perjuring yourself? Off to be stoned with you for "murder by state."
We're so ***** "progressive" that the legal codes of the ancient middle east are more protective of the accused than we are. - kufu91, on 11/06/2009, -1/+29Shouldn't the legal argument be pretty easy to get these guys? all you'd have to say is that by "gathering evidence" they were not acting in their capacity as prosecutors so the immunity shouldn't apply. bang done.
//but I aint no lawyer - blapierre, on 11/06/2009, -0/+28No, prosecutors are supposed to seek justice. It is completely unethical, immoral, and hopefully illegal to prosecute someone that they know is not guilty, especially when they start fabricating evidence.
- DamnMan, on 11/06/2009, -2/+28Former lawyers deciding if their fellow lawyers should be held accountable...
Yeah I think we can all safely guess how this will end.
Why exactly aren't they being tried in a criminal court again? Knowingly giving false evidence, coercion, and conspiracy would hang any of us lowly mortals. Even if we begrudgingly agree with absolute immunity from civil cases a crime is crime.
Who will police the police?
Who will prosecute the prosecutors? - fdsa1342, on 11/06/2009, -9/+32A. Minority
B. Poor
C. Mentally Handicapped
D. All of the above - Schmich, on 11/06/2009, -1/+24"whats more to loose...."
One of the o's. - teamgwho, on 11/06/2009, -1/+23Well, maybe they can't be prosecuted, and maybe they can't be sued personally, but certainly the state can. Right? And somebody tell me these prosecutors have been fired and barred from ever practicing law again. Please.
- richirwin, on 11/06/2009, -2/+23I am reminded of this...
"So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway". - Rush Limbaugh, Oct. 28, 2009
Truth and facts - they mean something. - Cornelp, on 11/06/2009, -0/+20They should be given the same sentence them 2 boys had.
Personally, if I lost 25 of my years behind bars (specially my young years), and I could not put these dirtbags behind bars, I would take it to the next level...
I've already lost 25 years, so whats more to loose.... - ElSnuggles, on 11/06/2009, -0/+20Actually, under laws of the state, they cannot seek compensation from the state.
Stunning, just stunning. I can't imagine their is no legal recourse available to these men who lost a third of their life.
=( - InetRoadkill, on 11/06/2009, -0/+20Prosecutors caught in this sort of behavior should have to serve the defendant's sentence up to and including the death penalty. Railroading people should not be tolerated.
At the very minimum, he should be permanently disbarred. - Cornelp, on 11/06/2009, -0/+19Midtower, you make a good point.
What the defense dont see is the fact that "allowing defendants to sue" will NOT put a heavy burden on procesutors.
Why? Because not ALL prosecutors FALSIFY EVIDENCE (at least they shouldnt)...
If they do, then HELL YEAH, put a burden on them SOOO HEAVY, it will scar them for LIFE... - NSResponder, on 11/06/2009, -0/+17The thing is, they weren't "gathering evidence", they were suborning perjury. Perjury isn't evidence, it's the opposite of evidence.
There's a federal charge that these two can be brought up on, which is conspiracy to deprive a person of their constitutional rights under color of law. It's a ten-year stretch in federal prison per count.
-jcr - mbtria, on 11/06/2009, -0/+171. Experience with those States which permit civil suits against prosecutors who violate their oath of office has shown that there are extremely few suits against prosecutors, and no significant burden.
2. It is interesting that those who want to enforce the laws want to be immune to it.
3. If prosecutors have an absolute immunity for framing individuals, then the veracity of prosecutors will take a serious hit. Jurors should disbelieve everything that a prosecutor says that can't be proven through at least three independent evidence trails.
4. Since the beginning of the drug wars (1914), prosecutors have gained more and more in legal power in determining sentences as well as guilt. "Pile on" charges often make it impossible for the innocent not to plead guilty to something, just because the costs of going to trial are beyond the reach of anyone but the wealthy. And if the case is lost, there are insane penalties as well. If prosecutors have complete immunity, then judges and juries become nothing more than ornaments. - JCPahl, on 11/06/2009, -4/+20Yeah but then you have to stone homosexuals and adulterers and rebellious children and infidels and children of infidels and people who eat shellfish, so I still prefer our system
- DavidNiven, on 11/06/2009, -4/+20Let me save everyone the trouble. If the prosecutors lied, presented manufactured evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence helpful to the defense, and/or suborned perjury...then YES.
- Cornelp, on 11/06/2009, -1/+17Absolutely...
If they cant sue, hmmm, I would take the next step for sure... - elshanero, on 11/06/2009, -0/+16I dugg you up based on the assumption that you are making social commentary.
- MRAS, on 11/06/2009, -0/+15Is "Perverting the course of justice" is not a crime?
- moduc, on 11/06/2009, -0/+14Agree. No one is above the law. These people should not be. Any system can be good if there is check and balanced. If these people can go unchecked, it's all burden on everyone else. They can do whatever they do, but have to be within bound of the law, which is not to lie to the court (lie - knowingly making false statement). If they quote their client, then quote it, don't say it as fact. Why the judges need to debate on this?
- skztr, on 11/06/2009, -0/+14"should be charged for" != "can be sued for"
No, you shouldn't be able to sue them for it.
Yes, they should be charged with conspiracy to kidnapping, and conspiracy to murder. - davebg8r, on 11/06/2009, -0/+13"If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit," explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind.
If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial it is not an 'error'. It is willful deception aka lying. Errors are unintentional mistakes.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with laywers. They spend their entire education and career learning what the law is and how to circumvent it. This is their mentality. This is also why we should not have lawyers so involved in government. Knowing this mentality and how many lawyers involved in running our government, are we really surprised the government is so screwed up?
The court system should require the prosecution and defense to work together to find the truth, not compete as to who can make a better case. - sb66, on 11/06/2009, -0/+13I think after 25 years in jail, I would ensure justice was done, no matter what.
- dpizzillo, on 11/06/2009, -0/+12Here's a solution that doesn't require any modification to the current system. The two wrongfully imprisoned guys should murder the two prosecutors. On their murder trial, they should attempt to prove that the prosecutors falsified evidence to put them away. If they are able to prove it, the jury should sentence them to 25 years and consider it time served. Done.
- NSResponder, on 11/06/2009, -0/+11Of course it's a crime, the question is whether the state is in the business of justice or power.
-jcr - NSResponder, on 11/06/2009, -0/+11The plaintiff's lawyer said: ""If the court doesn't protect an American from being framed for murder, if there isn't a remedy for being put in prison for something he didn't do based on evidence falsified against him, then I'm going to move."
I'd go a bit further than that, and point out that people institute governments to secure our freedom: to protect ourselves from aggression, whether from foreign powers or domestic criminals. When the government itself commits aggression against us, then it is both our right and our duty under the law, to "alter or abolish" that government and replace it with a government that acts within the law.
Andrew Napolitano pointed out that these principles are written in the Declaration of Independence, and the declaration itself, is part of our LAW. It is an act of congress. It predates the Constitution but the declaration is not repealed or replaced by the Constitution.
-jcr - mkriss5681, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10I'll be honest I don't have a better system in mind, but I feel that judges and prosecutors should not be elected politicians. They become more focused on getting re-elected than actually dishing out fair justice. How many cases like this have we heard of?
At least there should be strict national sentencing guidelines to take some of the power away from the states. Why is a crime in one state more or less punished in another? The answer is not because it was fair punishment, it is because the Judge is trying to appease his base.
Also the appeals process should be done with a neutral third party. I get convicted by a corrupt prosecutor or judge, than I get his buddy here my case from the same district.
Our justice system really needs to be revamped, more than any other part of our government. - bobburn1, on 11/06/2009, -0/+9It should always be illegal to frame a man, and as a student of law I will tell you it should be that lawyers are held to an even higher degree. As a prosecutor your job is to ensure the RIGHT man, not the BLACK man is brought to justice.
- rblancarte, on 11/06/2009, -0/+9Actually because the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have a lot more work to do. If they do their job - they deserve protection, because they can't be held responsible for doing things right.
But in a case where prosecutors knowingly falsify evidence and testimony, they should lose that protection. I mean, this goes beyond framing someone, it is not doing your job. - NSResponder, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10We had no remedy under the laws of King George III against crimes committed by his soldiers against our people. That's why we overthrew him and established our own governments.
-jcr - Sporky023, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned."
- Thomas Jefferson - trevor98, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8Inaccurate. It isn't legal to frame anyone, prosecutors are simply shielded from personal legal battles on their official conduct so that they can do their jobs. I think they violated every ethic of their profession and should be disbarred and the office should be sued. Doesn't that work?
- Jowsley, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8I can't believe this is even being questioned. From everything I've read, this isn't a case of the prosecutors making a mistake, it's a case of them flat out lying. How anyone could argue that prosecutors should be allowed to lie in court is beyond me. I can accept a prosecutor making an honest mistake, but that's not what happened here.
- Outofthenight, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9Justice hasn't died, and isn't dead. It never lived to begin with, outside of the minds of a relatively few people.
- gkiltz, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8There are basically two methods that account for 90% of all wrongful convictions.
Police coercing or tricking people into confessions, or prosecutors withholding evidence.
The second is more common. In most cases, it's harder to prove.
When prosecutors withhold evidence, that is a crime in most states already. Immunity for public officials does not apply to deliberate misconduct. Never has.
In the era of DNA, AFIS, and forensic analysis, it's not like the prosecutors don't know better.
Cops, in some cases may not, because not all of the states have their AFIS systems fully integrated with the FBI-run national system. That is why we have prosecutors, because in some cases, cops really may not be able to tell.
The worst this ruling would do is unleash a flood of lawsuits against municipalities and states in places where the prosecutors have too much immunity. - SacraBos, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8How can the defense attorney, the witnesses, the defendant, and everyone else be subject to punishment (perjury, disbarment, lawsuits etc) for lying in a court of law - but the prosecutors NOT?
- Sporky023, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8@darkened. I think mudoc and Tarkaan were speaking not of the present legal code of the USA, but rather of the ideal law which our constitution tries to emulate.
In that sense, one of the supreme "laws" of the ideal legal system is that "No one is above the law." Some people would use the word "unconstitutional" to refer to the protection given to public prosecutors, and I agree with the general idea - i.e. that even though there is a law or policy on the books, it should be considered invalid or erroneous insofar as it conflicts with a deeper law we all agree on as authority.
My only difference is that the word "unconstitutional" implies that the US Constitution is the standard for the validity of other subordinate laws. IMHO, the US Constitution is itself only a particular attempted manifestation of an ideal law based on societal ethics and utilitarianism. Hence it is not from the Constitution but rather from this ideal law that the statement "No one is above the law" comes from. - skinny01, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7It becomes legal when
"The authorities' first suspect — a white man married to the daughter of the fire chief — failed a lie-detector test and was identified by more than one witness; his case was inexplicably dropped. Instead, Hrvol and Richter targeted two black teenagers whose only connection to the murder came from the testimony of a teenage boy who was arrested for stealing a car. The boy gave three alternate versions of the murder, admitted to lying on multiple occasions, and was allegedly pressured by Hrvol and Richter into naming Harrington and McGhee." - Midtowner, on 11/06/2009, -2/+9At minimum, I think these guys need to lose their licenses to practice law. I'm not ready to cast aside prosecutorial discretion yet. While there may be horrific cases like this from time to time, to remove prosecutorial discretion would open up a whole new realm of litigation in just about every single criminal case and it would probably severely tax the resources of both the defense' offices and the prosecution's offices.
It might feel right, but there'd be some very real systemic costs to this proposition. - Ysaric, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7I do not believe these prosecutors should have immunity, but there is no way I am holding up Sharia and Old Testament legal codes as examples of how things should be done. You can have rational, contemporary discussions about modifying the judicial system and legal codes without resorting to books that can be twisted to say just about anything anyone wants them to say. I'm not saying there is no value in history, just that when you start talking about religious law it tends to bring out the crazies and the craziness in people.
- DAVENP0RT, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7I love that, for the common person, lying to the Court is perjury. For a lawyer, completely falsifying a trial and mocking the Court system is just a loophole.
- beerhound, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7I'll go with skztr's idea posted above. Keep the immunity from being sued, lifting that immunity would lead to every single defendant filing suit against the prosecutors just to distract them from their job. It would also cost us as tax payers way more money dealing with all the extra lawsuits. On the other hand, there is no way we should continue to allow for immunity from having criminal charges filed for criminal acts.
- absurdist, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5Remember, folks, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. One in which it is possible to have people put to death as a result of missed paperwork submission deadlines, as but one example. Until that changes, I'm willing to bet stories like these are more the rule than the exception; it's simply that other inmates don't have this clear-cut of evidence on their side.
- Sporky023, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5I heard that too.
- Awesomebox5000, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5Wouldn't that equate to a malpractice suit for doctors?
- tgc1, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5Justice has Died.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is