July 19, 2011


Prosecutorial malfeasance, apparently, in the Casey Anthony case.

Presumably then, as Althouse says, if there had been a guilty verdict, she'd be getting a new trial now. But what about the prosecutors, who broke the law by knowingly suppressing evidence and, it appears, presenting what they knew to be false information to the court and jury?

As things currently stand, prosecutors who abuse their authority, suppress or manufacture evidence, knowingly prosecute innocent people, and engage in other sorts of ought-to-be-outrageous-though-nobody-cares skullduggery rarely face any consequences whatsoever for their actions. I'm sure that will be the case here. They will go on to have long, satisfying careers of presenting false evidence and suppressing exculpatory evidence when targeting other citizens.

Here's an idea: a prosecutor who can be shown to have suppressed or manufactured evidence, or to have knowingly prosecuted an innocent person, or engaged in other serious, outrageous misconduct that has the effect of perverting the course of justice should be subject to: (a) summary dismissal and disbarment; (b) civil liability; (c) mandatory sentencing to the same sentence sought in the case, up to and including the death penalty.

I'd vote for that. It would cut down, way down, on prosecutorial misconduct, and I know I'd feel a whole lot better about the judicial system if there were a built-in disincentive for abuse.

I realize you wouldn't necessarily need (a) if you get (c) but at a bare minimum we should get (a), even if they manage to wiggle out of (b) and (c). Of course, we won't even get (a).

Posted by Dr. Frank at July 19, 2011 06:24 PM | TrackBack