I believe that prosecutors, like every other human on earth, are prone to error or worse. I believe that some prosecutors might avoid cases that are difficult or time consuming, preferring to keep their conviction rate high. And their work load light. Unless of course, the DA's office is unique in never having lazy, incompetent, ambitious or dishonest people in it. I'll admit that there are plenty of crappy, inept, greedy and lazy doctors. Will you admit that there are crappy, inept, greedy and lazy prosecutors?
You have a mistaken impression about the way a prosecutors office works. Prosecutors work half their career just to be in the position to handle murder trials. There's intense competition to get the big cases, and when you get one, it's a big deal. If your lazy, inept, etc, you would never want to get into that part of the job, and you probably wouldn't be able to make the cut at any rate. You'll probably be happy doing citations and the juvi docket.
There's also a tremendous amount of people looking over your shoulder checking on the progress of the case. The D.A. who assigned you the case, the investigators, family members, etc. There's a good chance that you won't be alone, you will be part of the prosecution team consisting of 2 or 3 lawyers. All of this makes it unlikely that a lone prosecutors would sit on a legitimate murder case because he was lazy and inept.
When a big case comes in, everyone jumps at the chance to prosecute it, and everyone wants to have the case end in a successful prosecution. It's very hard when you think the person is guilty, but know that you don't have enough evidence to go to trial. Or worse, when you think they are guilty, but have a reasonable doubt yourself. But in either of those situations, you shouldn't go to trial.
What you need to be more afraid of is the opposite scenario - prosecutors trying to make cases they shouldn't to enhance their career or just out of the sheer sense competition. In other words, the bias is in the other direction in a murder case.
Cosnider the recent case of a wealthy couple in Denver who brought their battered baby to an ER to die...only much, much later, after a public outcry, did the prosecutors act on the case and bring charges. How about the, er, somewhat less than aggressive pursuit of the Ramsey case? Ted Kennedy's prosecutor was, let's say, somewhat less than aggressive in the Kopechne case as well. Or how about the aggressive pursuit of the Duke rape case? Or the inept prosecution of OJ. Or the countless people being sprung from prisons because of DNA evidence? The point is that the legal system, like any other system, needs public scrutiny and criticism.
Countless cases have been proven years later by prosecutors more interested and competent that the goof offs who handled the original cases and you know it. This would not be a first. Does the Drew Peterson case ring a bell? His second wife's case was ruled an accidental drowning (in a bath tub with no water in it) by the first DA, but a later re-investigation showed what any numbskull could have deduced...she was murdered. Conveniently, the names of those who jumped to the first conclusion have not been released. The fact that Peterson was a cop is probably not important, since DAs are, in general, above reproach and devoid of any political favoritism.
You watch a lot of court tv, or crime news. Certainly more than I do. To the extent I am familiar with those cases, the mostly seem like the prosecution brought cases they shouldn't have because of the reason I warned about above. Certainly the Duke case seems like a prime example of that.
In most cases the lay public is not in a position to say whether the charges should be brought any more than they should tell a patient whether or not they should have a surgery. There is a bit of technical knowledge in conducting a trial that is beyond the scope of what you may have received from your general education. For example, guess what happens if you go to trial with dodgy evidence and lose, and only later discover evidence that would get a win? To bad, so sad, you should have waited until your case was win-able before you brought it. Now the killer walks free.
Media pressure to bring a case is not a good idea, in general, anymore than it would be for the media to pressure a doctor to perform an operation he didn't think was in the patients best interest. The public often isn't as informed on these matters as they believe they are.
I screw up and I get my rear end sued off...prosecutors screw up and, oh, I forgot. You are immune to litigation for your mistakes.
Lawyers sue lawyers for negligence all the time. If you happen to work for the government you can get some immunity, (but not complete immunity) but hey, you could work for the government, and they would provide your insurance.
I know that the average DA is trying to do his or her job honorably, but mistakes are made.
I don't get the high and mighty "we can't discuss this" "don't try the poor guy in the media" "you're jumping to conclusions" attitude of some posters. This is standard office cooler speculation we all do every day about any number of ongoing crime cases. Get over it. This guy is now in the public domain and discussion of his case, by the media and others, is fair comment.
More importantly, this case is bringing scuba diving into a somewhat unfavorable light internationally, so it belongs in this forum
I do agree that this is fair game for discussion, the presumption of innocence is only afforded in Court and during the proceedings. Just FYI, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" isn't in the Bill of Rights. It's just a short hand way of saying that burden is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, not on the defendant. But it certainly isn't applicable in non-criminal trial context, like an internet forum.
At the same time, realize that your ability to know whether a criminal action should be commenced is as accurate as my ability to know whether a doctor should perform a surgery. Because part of a trial deals with facts, and issues of what is right and what is wrong, sometimes people mistakenly believe that they have an intuitive sense about legal issues. The Law and Order type TV shows reinforce that perception. But the fact is, much of it is technical, and dealing with issues you haven't thought a lot about.
