alt Hacker NewsI think you have to understand that they care more about whether or not they can get a conviction than whatever actually happened. Then the rest of it makes perfect sense.
Replies
I think people underestimate how much the separation of roles matters to the case and to the motivations of the people in each role.
The detectives screwed up by doing a piss poor investigation and identifying the wrong suspect (who is a victim herself in this crime).
The prosecutor cares more about whether they can sell the flawed case to an Arkansas jury or use the low plea bargain cost against the high legal defense cost.
They don't care at all. For her it's potentially six years in prison, for the cops, and the prosecutor it's a small potatoes case on a random Thursday.
The plea deal offer kind of says it all, if this reaches the court it will either very quickly be thrown out or they may drop it because it's not worth the time.
Key insight: the police and prosecutors are not measured by crimes solved but by number of convictions.
So beyond the prosecutor, we have to start questioning judges and juries. If the prosecutor so strongly feels that a weak case has a chance of getting a conviction, then what's really wrong here: the prosecutor or the judge/jury part of the system? Prosecutors are famous for only bring cases to trial they feel they can win. That sense normally comes from their experience directly or reading of previous trials.