The Desire to Win v. The Desire for Fairness

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:28:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In light of all the evidence that wrongful convictions are a serious and systemic problem in our criminal justice system (including the conviction of Timothy Atkins, who served 20 years for a murder he didn't commit), one would think prosecutors would desire to fix the errors that lead to wrongful convictions. Why don't they?

One reason change is unlikely is the pressure to win. Successful prosecutors win convictions. Fairness? It's a desirable quality, but to some an unaffordable luxury when it threatens to impinge on a conviction.

Konrad Moore, a supervising deputy public defender in Kern County, California, discusses how the "win at all costs" mentality is affecting (and infecting) the trial of Phil Spector at the expense of fairness.

< Doolittle Steps Down From House Appropriations Comm. | Obey's Responsibility on Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Desire to Win v. The Desire for Fairness | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Are you really suggesting (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:47:50 PM EST

that defense attorneys do not also, very deeply, "want to win?"

It's an adversarial construct which you wholly buy into.

Are you really suggesting that wrongful convictions are "bad" but wrongful acquittals are not?

I think (none / 0) (#3)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:56:00 PM EST

the article is implying that in the competitive world of trial attorneys, prosecutors may have more "umph" or ambition to advance in their careers, than public defenders.

This might not be correct, but there is an argument there. I'd like to here some of the layers here weigh in on it.

In my opinion though a wrongful conviction is worse than a wrongful acquital and I think the tradition in America is to error on the side of Acquital vs. conviction in cases wher there is ambiguity.


: Its Friday, (none / 0) (#4)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:58:11 PM EST

I'd like to hearsome of the lawyers here weigh in on it.

: I guess I was specifically thinking of (none / 0) (#7)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:26:41 PM EST

wrongful acquittals of serious criminals.
When a mugger, rapist, murderer, thief, Enron exec goes free it is not "fair" for anyone, although it is certainly a "win" for the defense attorney.

The role of a prosecutor... (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:13:01 PM EST

is supposed to be different. a defense lawyer is an advocate for his client. A prosecutor is an advocate for the state but he is expected to also be an advocate for "justice."


Decon (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:39:00 PM EST

Good point.

Although, it does seem odd that defense attorneys are not expected to be advocates for "justice," merely an advocate of winning.

But I guess that does give some balance to the power of the state as embodied by the prosecutor.


Being a defense attorney (none / 0) (#11)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:01:58 PM EST

is not for those who cannot tolerate a degree of moral ambiguity from time to time.

Our job isn't to "judge" our client or their conduct. Our job is to provide zealous advocacy tempered only by our duties to obey the law and adhere to our ethical duties to the tribunal and opposing counsel. We are not part of law enforcement.

Because we as a society recognize the imbalance of power between the individual and the government, we do not place a duty to seek "justice" upon the lawyer for the defendant. Indeed, often the job may require seeking an "unjust" result, and the fact that in a particular case I might believe my client "deserves" to be convicted or "deserves" a certain level of punishment can never cause me to seek with all my ability an aquittal or dismissal or a lesser punishment following a conviction.

I do not have to take a case, nor do I always have to continue in a case, but so long as I am the lawyer, I am bound to seek the best result for my client --no matter what.


A minor point (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Sailor on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:51:54 PM EST

Being a defense attorney is not for those who cannot tolerate a degree of moral ambiguity from time to time.

And that would be different from prosecutors how? Prosecutors are beholden to cops and what they perceive as the folks who will vote for them again ... and to cops.

so long as I am the lawyer, I am bound to seek the best result for my client --no matter what.

Umm, no. You too are an officer of the court.

Tho I do understand the difference in a most personal way. The State has all the resources the state is willing to expend, the defense is limited by how much the client can pay, and if it's a PD their resources are limited by what the state will pay ... while it's also paying for the prosecutors.

When I see PDs in court that have the same access to a judge and can afford the same suits and shoes prosecutors have ... that might be a more fair system.


You, sir, (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 09:50:28 AM EST

are an idiot-- totally, completely and irredeemably. You have a comment on everything and knowledge of nothing. You follow mw around posting nonsense so puerile and lacking in substance it is a waste of time to read.

Henceforth, I will neither read nor respond to your stupidity. Perhaps, if more follow suit, you and your ilk will cease.


: Hmmm (none / 0) (#23)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:08:17 PM EST

Your standard intelligent and well thought out response I see.
I guess it's the best one can expect from a talking dog.

this site needs editing capabilities (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:04:27 PM EST

It should read:

fact that in a particular case I might believe my client "deserves" to be convicted or "deserves" a certain level of punishment can never cause me NOT to seek with all my ability an aquittal or dismissal or a lesser punishment following a conviction


: Thyanks Decon (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:16:31 PM EST

I think we understood what you meant.
I didn't know you were defense lawyer until just now.

wrongful aquitals (none / 0) (#2)
by Jen M on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:55:18 PM EST

are not AS bad as wrongful convitions.

Wrongful aquitals let one person get away with a crime. They don't destroy another person's life.

A wrongful conviction does both.

well, (none / 0) (#6)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:15:36 PM EST

While I agree that wrongful convictions are worse, it is wrong to suggest that no one pays when their is a wrongful acquittal. I'm sure there are others on this site who can speak about people who have been acquitted of one crime who then went on to commit others (including rape, murder, etc...).

So yes, they can destroy another persons life.


: thats (none / 0) (#18)
by Jen M on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:31:19 PM EST

a probably, not a absolutely sure, as in a wrongful conviction.

Things I am learning about the (none / 0) (#9)
by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:39:08 PM EST

criminal justice system. It has nothing to do with justice, it is about law. It has nothing to do with fairness, life isn't fair. Statutes rule, not people.

Here's a question (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:43:55 PM EST

Which group is bigger - the group of people who commit crimes and don't get convicted for them, or the group that gets convicted of crimes they didn't commit?

This is not meant to weigh one side of the argument against the other, just a question of our perceptions.

In sheer numbers (none / 0) (#13)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:06:15 PM EST

I'd be willing to bet that the group that commits crime but are not convicted is larger.

But, in my opinion, there would be less violent criminals out there if we didn't put such a large percentage of people behind bars in the first place. THis is just a hunch, mind you, but I don't think a society that places such a large percentage of black males behind bars is going to be a just society. We pay for this injustice with a higher violent crime rate, I emphasize, in my opinion (in other words I have no evidence to back this up).

I cannot excusse individuals such as these. This crime almost makes me as queasy as the VA Tech case. However, I have to wonder about teenagers without male role models at home or with so many who are in prison. imagine the isolation and anger that this must produce, expecially in poor and disenfranchised nieghborhoods.

None of this is to say we should work harder to acquit guilty individuals who commit violent crimes. It just demonstrates the damage caused by such large incarceration rates among minorities and the necessity to do something about it besides putting more of them into our prison system.


: t (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:15:25 PM EST

There is no question the group that commits crimes and is not convicted is MUCH larger. Simply the number who are involved in "unsolved" crimes is much larger than the number of wrongful convictions. Even when we limit the comparison to people who become defendants in criminal judicial proceedings, far more cases where a "factually guilty" person is not convicted far exceed the number the number where a "factually innocent" person is convicted.
That's because the system is intentionally designed that way and even with that built-in preference for erring on the side of fewer wrongful convictions, we still have them and often in the most serious cases with the most serious consequences.

I'm not sure I clearly understand (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:15:15 PM EST

your connection between these two sentances, or if you meant any connection at all...

But, in my opinion, there would be less violent criminals out there if we didn't put such a large percentage of people behind bars in the first place. THis is just a hunch, mind you, but I don't think a society that places such a large percentage of black males behind bars is going to be a just society.

I don't want to speak for Peaches (none / 0) (#17)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:18:34 PM EST

(and don't entirely agree) but I think the thought is that by "branding" people at an early age with the tag of "criminal" and placing them in the most criminal environment possible (prison) we increase the likelihood that those people will become more dangerous in the future than if we dealt with differently earlier in the process.


Yes, that and (none / 0) (#19)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:37:18 PM EST

the environment it creates in the home of the individuals behind bars.

There is a very large percentage of Black males that have felony convictions and have served time in prison. Our prison system is represented by blacks at a much higher percentage than they are in society. I don't know the latest statistics, but I am fairly certain this is true. I think I read somewhere recently (Harpers index?) that 1 in 4 black males has served time in our prison system. Don't take that number as fact, My memory is getting worse and worse, but it was a statistic that jumped out at me and left me thinking, how can that be?

What I am saying is that many black male youths in black housholds have a father in jail. Black youths in school are labeled as Special education at the same higher percentage as the rate of adults males in prison. (Another one of those statistics I read somewhere that sticks with me without the source-so take it for what it is which may not be much). Our public schools become the training groung for Black male youths to enter our prison system. That is the connection I see. All of this is a convoluted way of saying that there are some things in our society that are a bit messed up and there are solutions that would go further towards solving them, then cracking down on criminals and ensuring that no violent criminals slip through the cracks of our justice system


: All good (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:49:48 PM EST

I'm certainly supportive of trying different things.