Should prosecutors have to pay if they wrongly convict someone.?

I mean if there is a doubt and they still prosecute, should they be suspended or fined if they are wrong?

A lot of this is coming up with DNA these days
Answer:
I believe that prosecutor should pay a price only if they are flagrantly wrong. There should be know penalty for getting it wrong.

I am from Oklahoma City and the DA Bob Macy convicted an innocent man who was cleared twenty years later by DNA. Although I have the deepest sympathy for the apartment maintenance man who life was ruined I believe that Macy acted in good faith and a normal person would have felt that he was guilty. Under that circumstance; he should not be held accountable.

The Duke case was a different ball of wax; he knew they were innocent but went after them for political gain. He should not only pay the heavy cost that their parents had to pay for legal bills but he should be subjected to the same prison sentences that the Lacrosse players faced.

The scary part of this case is that it severely hurt some of the families financially they were able to hire the best counsel. If this had happened to someone of an average income they would be in prison.

---

No. It's hard enough to convict a guilty person today. If you can manage to convict an innocent one, man, you are one good prosecutor!

---

No they need the freedom to prosecute vigourously and without worrying about consequenses.

I think the Defending lawyers should be punished if they fail to defend an innocent person.

---

They're just doing their jobs. They are not supposed to determine whether you are innocent, just make sure that the jury doesn't believe that.

---

i agree they should pay and everyone else who had anything to do with the conviction. They flirt with peoples lives like it is a video game or something. They know how to get a conviction.

RJ

---

It is the job of prosecuters to prosecute - it is up to a judge or jury to convict someone. There is almost never a completely air tight case, unless someone confesses, and sometimes not even then - so to suggest that a prosecuter shouldn't prosecute someone just becuase there is doubt about the person's guilt?!? Of course they shouldn't have to pay for doing their job!!!

---

yes - if they had reason to believe they were wrongfully prosecuting someone, like in the duke case, then they should have consequences...
not just some doubt though...like a lot of doubt...

---

No- not at all. It's their job to make the strongest possible case out of the evidence available. They shouldn't be penalized because technology that didn't exist at the time provided further evidence.

---

Prosecuters do NOT convict people...juries do

---

Yes they should. The whole court system could be held accountable for thier actions. This would ensure fair justice. Currently the system goes on the who cares if your innocent ideology give me your money your guilty.

---

not personally if they acted in good faith. But people who are wrongfully convicted shoulr be compensated for loss of reputation, leagal expenses and jail time by the jurisdiction that prosecuted them.

---

Only if the Prosecutor is found guilty of criminal misconduct.

Criminal court is not about who is right or wrong. It is not about true or false. It is about proving a case or not proving a case. If someone is acquitted it does not mean he did not commit the crime. Just because someone is convicted it does not mean he committed the crime.

.

---

No. There are several individuals in the production line and any one of them may have overlooked some vital evidence of put forward misleading facts. Which one of them would you blame? Where a vital evidence is withheld either by a police officer or a lawyer, then the person concerned is dealt with through disciplinary proceedings and in extreme cases could be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Where a prosecutor is simply doing a job conscientiously, then he or she does not deserve to be punished. Where a prosecutor in court does feel on reasonable grounds that there is a problem of this kind, then he or she has to check with a superior before abandoning a case. It is not always a matter of personal choice.

---

Proscecuters work on behalf of the state, so the state is what gets sued. That is why when a case is called they say " The State vs...".

---

Prosecutors don't convict anyone. That decision is made by a judge or jury. If the evidence is there to satisfy those folks beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is doing his/her job. On the other hand, if a prosecutor withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense or in some other way manipulates evidence to obtain a conviction, they can and should be prosecuted and disbarred (think Duke Lacrosse case).

---

out the a** my dear, but only they can lie and get away with shi*. its the state tho that should pay, since they all work for the state, although in a jury trial, its hard to say.