• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

A bad prosecutor actually goes to jail!

 
 
 
Yeah, 10 days is way too light.

A year for every year the innocent guy spent in jail should do.
 
It's shocking how rarely charges are even applied in the first place.
 
What a first, the three of us agree.

It is rather odd that none of the civil liberties efforts of liberals in the 1960s matured into a serious movement to reform the power of the government prosecutor to abuse the innocent. While folks propose and seriously consider sentence reform, talk a whole lot about rehabilitation, are outraged at police conduct, or are upset at capital punishment of the innocent, almost NO ONE is outraged at the orchestrator of the injustice - state prosecutors.

These "law and order" prosecutors are everyone's "hero" - an ugly manifestation of the widespread latent admiration of raw political and legal power over the common citizenry.

This former prosecutor and judge failed to disclose evidence in a case that sent an innocent man to prison for the murder of his wife for 25 years. As prosecutor he had evidence that could have cleared Morton, "including statements from the crime's only eyewitness that Morton wasn't the culprit."

He "sat on this evidence, and then watched Morton get convicted. While Morton remained in prison for the next 25 years, Anderson's career flourished, and he eventually became a judge."

He was forced to give up his law license, perform 500 hours of community service, and spend 10 days in jail. What should have happened is he should spend not less than 12.5 years in the same prison, and work the rest of his life paying back the lost wages of Anderson.

I am in full support of innocence projects, but it seems that the ABA and "liberals" AGs like Eric Holder aren't so keen going after fellow lawyers. The police are easy targets, but the legal establishment protects its own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/o...tors-lots-of-them-in-southern-calif.html?_r=0
 
Alright, way to inject partisanship into a topic that should clearly be non-partisan.
 
Hence the need for the independent committees mentioned in the article. One can't expect any group to effectively police itself.
 
Since we're all more or less in agreement here, maybe we can find ways to find, as maxparrish puts it,why 'legal establishment protects its own'. I'd prefer we accept that as a truth found in most professions though rather than special to the 'legal profession'. With that preamble, my take on legal fellow protecting is about a failure of ethics within the profession coupled with more basis professional kin responses.

My belief is the main factor in ethical failure abounds in western cultures right now is because more emphasis in learning is on socialization than on individual responsibility.

As for kin we know they are like us so we come to their aid is probably more related to genetics than to anything learned. The impulse is there for anyone who sees or feels kinship which is first linked to knowing and feeling alike due to being together.

As for the particulars they've already been posted in four short posts.
 
ksen said:
Alright, way to inject partisanship into a topic that should clearly be non-partisan.
Click to expand...

So it is "partisanship" to note that it is odd that none of the civil liberties efforts of liberals in the 1960s matured into a serious reform movement? It's "partisanship" to note that in spite of all the topics debated in legal reform, prosecutors seem to be everybody's hero? It's partisanship to call the widespread popular admiration of a prosecutors raw legal and political power ugly? It's partisan to note that lawyers and the ABA protects their own?

Honestly, I don't care if its conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, John Ashcroft or Eric Holder, THERE HAS NOT BEEN a strong legal reform movement to seriously check prosecutorial abuse...in spite of a liberal 60s trend to reform the law. THEY, including liberal attorneys, protect their own.

The only "partisanship" you see is against lawyers and prosecutors vs. the rest of us. Is that what really makes you uncomfortable?
 
maxparrish said:
So it is "partisanship" to note that it is odd that none of the civil liberties efforts of liberals in the 1960s matured into a serious reform movement?
Click to expand...

It's partisanship due to the fact that you're a republican who foams at the mouth at every single thing liberals do. I've never seen you say anything approving of liberals, instead you seem to view them as inferiors, while you say nothing disapproving whatsoever about your own party.
 
maxparrish said:
ksen said:
Alright, way to inject partisanship into a topic that should clearly be non-partisan.
Click to expand...

So it is "partisanship" to note that it is odd that none of the civil liberties efforts of liberals in the 1960s matured into a serious reform movement? It's "partisanship" to note that in spite of all the topics debated in legal reform, prosecutors seem to be everybody's hero? It's partisanship to call the widespread popular admiration of a prosecutors raw legal and political power ugly? It's partisan to note that lawyers and the ABA protects their own?

Not even close. I don't care if its conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, John Ashcroft or Eric Holder, THERE HAS NOT BEEN a strong legal reform movement to seriously check prosecutorial abuse...in spite of a liberal 60s trend to reform the law. THEY protect their own.

The only "partisanship" you see is lawyers and prosecutors vs. the rest of us. Is that what really makes you uncomfortable?
Click to expand...

tl;dr
 
GenesisNemesis said:
maxparrish said:
So it is "partisanship" to note that it is odd that none of the civil liberties efforts of liberals in the 1960s matured into a serious reform movement?
Click to expand...

It's partisanship due to the fact that you're a republican who foams at the mouth at every single thing liberals do. I've never seen you say anything approving of liberals, instead you seem to view them as inferiors.
Click to expand...

So if one condemns both "law and order" conservatives and "civil rights" liberals for a failure to address an injustice that we all recognize, its partisan? On what bizarro world is "non-partisanship" mean one must be a partisan defensive liberal, offended that they might share equal responsibility?

Too daffy to take seriously.
 
maxparrish said:
GenesisNemesis said:
It's partisanship due to the fact that you're a republican who foams at the mouth at every single thing liberals do. I've never seen you say anything approving of liberals, instead you seem to view them as inferiors.
Click to expand...

So if one condemns both "law and order" conservatives and "civil rights" liberals for a failure to address an injustice that we all recognize, its partisan? On what bizarro world is "non-partisanship" mean one must be a partisan defensive liberal, offended that they might share equal responsibility?

Too daffy to take seriously.
Click to expand...

No, it's partisan in this case because of your obvious history of politically motivated outrage.
 
maxparrish said:
So if one condemns both "law and order" conservatives and "civil rights" liberals for a failure to address an injustice that we all recognize, its partisan?
Click to expand...

Nope, but you know that's not what you did in your opening salvo.
 
Holy shit, if we're all on the same side, can we try to have one thread where we're not bitching at each other?

I realize that this is the internet, but that doesn't mean that we need to act like we're posting comments on YouTube.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Holy shit, if we're all on the same side, can we try to have one thread where we're not bitching at each other?

I realize that this is the internet, but that doesn't mean that we need to act like we're posting comments on YouTube.
Click to expand...

We're all on the same side?
 
Anderson sat on this evidence, and then watched Morton get convicted. While Morton remained in prison for the next 25 years, Anderson's career flourished, and he eventually became a judge.

In today's deal, Anderson pled to criminal contempt, and will have to give up his law license, perform 500 hours of community service, and spend 10 days in jail. Anderson had already resigned in September from his position on the Texas bench.
Click to expand...

Seems fair. An innocent man goes to jail for 25 years and the prosecutor gets 10 days in jail. That's justice.

I can't see why you guys are high fiving each other
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom