It matters because the prosecution should have said something. The prosecutor's job is not to just put somebody in jail, but rather, to put the right somebody in jail. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that in the US as part of the adversarial position between law enforcement and citizens.
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that in the US as part of the adversarial position between law enforcement and citizens.
It's sad that our system has become more about winning and less about finding the truth and laying down justice. Here's a horrifying case where police and the prosecutor worked lied to convict a man who ended up in prison for 10 years before being release:
There was another story (not surprising in Denver again) where over 10% of the police force has been reprimanded for lying while on duty. This includes falsifying evidence, police reports and even lying on the stand. Most were still employed for some reason.
My girlfriend watched almost the entire trial. I sat in for some of it. After about 30 minutes, I literally said out loud, "Neither of these legal teams are interested in the truth; they're only interested in winning." Not only is your statement true, but it's become blatantly apparent.
The aim of an adversarial court system is to get at the truth by having the people on each side working hard to expose those bits of the truth that suit their goals. The system is supposed to get at the truth, and that doesn't necessarily require that all the people involved are primarily trying to get at the truth. It may even work best when they aren't.
Similarly: buyers and sellers in a market needn't individually be aiming to arrive at an efficient or socially beneficial outcome; voters in a democracy needn't individually be aiming to elect someone who will be best for everyone's interests; employees of a company needn't all be concerned solely with the company's success. The trick is to design the system so that even when individual people are motivated by self-interest the aggregate effect is a good one.
Of course, none of these systems works perfectly in practice, and sometimes that's because some individual's self-interest ends up having too much influence on the outcome. Some or all of the systems might want changing to encourage participants to act less self-interested somehow. But I think it's just an error to say "Ugh, those people are acting in their own interests and not pursuing the top-level goal of the system" when the system is designed to get individuals' pursuit of their own interests to work towards that top-level goal.
Your right about the system being designed a certain way and that's how it should work. The problem is that the state has so many more resources, and if you add flat out lying to the mix, the system breaks down. I'm of the opinion that since the state has the burden of proof and virtually unlimited resources that they should also be striving for the truth above all else. When it becomes more about convictions and less about justice, the system will fail to the detriment of all of society.
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever. -John Adams
buyers and sellers in a market needn't individually be aiming to arrive at an efficient or socially beneficial outcome
Yet we have regulation because we've seen sellers destroy the environment and take advantage of buyers left and right.
voters in a democracy needn't individually be aiming to elect someone who will be best for everyone's interests
Yet Congress has shone time and again that corruption and cronyism are at it's heart, even if it sacrifices what is good for the people, the economy, or the government. (I don't think the system is even working right now, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future; the US has gone through times lime this before.)
employees of a company needn't all be concerned solely with the company's success
But what happens when employees only focus on their own reward? Companies like that become intolerable places to work at that are hugely inefficient, generally surviving only by cannibalizing itself or by simply leveraging its mass in a pseudo-illegal way). The corporate system is designed for everybody to be doing what is best for the company (which might not always be profits), but that breaks down, too, when everybody starts pursuing their own agenda to the exclusion of anything else.
Systems can take a certain amount of perturbation and survive, but, just like Stuxnet and the centrifuges, if you introduce too much disorder in a system, it will break down. In human society, it seems selfishness, that drive to take care of myself regardless of what it means to anybody else, is often the root cause of that (it certainly is in all the above cases).
It's too bad we can't be a little more communally-oriented (without needing to live in the forest in a VW and not take baths ;). Who wants to do a sun-dance with me to find some extra pollen for the hive?
Did you perhaps miss the bit where I said "Of course, none of these systems works perfectly in practice, and sometimes that's because some individual's self-interest ends up having too much influence on the outcome. Some or all of the systems might want changing to encourage participants to act less self-interested somehow." ?
I wasn't saying "there's never anything wrong with selfishness" or "systems that try to make selfishness produce results that benefit everyone never get exploited" or anything of the kind. Just pointing out that "look, people are being self-interested rather than aiming to serve the greater good" isn't on its own a good objection.
I also wasn't arguing that there should (in any of these domains) be no regulation. There should be, and as it happens there is. Perhaps there should be more. That's an entirely separate question from whether a basically-adversarial system in which all the lawyers are out to win is a good thing.
So far as I know, it's an open question whether justice is best served by a purely adversarial system in which everyone argues for a particular outcome, or a purely investigative system in which no one is supposed to be on one side rather than another, or a basically adversarial system with a bunch of rules that aim to take some of the edge off (which is what we have now), or some other intermediate thing. It's not the sort of question you can resolve by saying "You can't do that -- it means everyone just cares about winning!" or "You can't do that -- it relies on people ignoring their own interests!".
Because said findings were found faulty while the case was still proceeding. It would be irresponsible to let the prosecution get away with illegal behaviour just because the defendant won.
Surely it matters that the prosecution had a responsibility to pass on the information and chose not to?
That, and the fact that you've got to seriously worry when a report from a piece of software that can confuse the numbers 1 and 84 is being used as evidence in court.
I took away the message that I would need to be quite careful about being called as an expert witness, viz what exactly my brief was. He thought it was about something, the prosecutor asked him about something else.
Good on him for having the moral fortitude to correct his error.
Many people still think she is guilty. It was a shared computer and her mother testified that she had done one search on chloroform. The prosecution countered that there were 84 searches, so the rest had to have been done by the daughter. But it turns out that they ran two different programs on the recovered cache data and one program said there was 1 hit total, the other program said there were 84 searches over several weeks. The company with the 1 hit wrote an analysis showing their competitor's results were wrong. The competitor, with the 84 hits, agreed, and contacted the prosecutors to let them know. The prosecutors decided not to mention that the testimony they were giving from expert witnesses was false, even though they were legally required to do so.
Maybe one of the jurors found it unlikely that she visited the page about chloroform 84 times and that subtly affected his or her perception of the prosecution's case.
