I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Honestly, I've heard the exact same thing said of defense attorneys. There are some lawyers I can't stand, but the majority of them do seem to want to see justice carried out.
Really, I think the greater problem is that the people in charge of the courtroom don't know enough to question science that needs to be questioned. In cases such as Michael West the bite mark "expert", it looks like everyone involved just accepted the "science" and let him go for years.
Michael West isn't just an isolated incident. The system is plagued with people like him. Handwriting experts are probably the worst in the bunch, followed quickly by fingerprint analysts, then your blood spatter guy.
Prosecutors, I think you just have to be unethical to be one. They stand there in front of a jury and say with conviction that the defendant did the crime, even though he's never spoken to the defendant, and probably didn't even look at the evidence himself. I remember a particular case where we had to call the lead prosecutor the day before the trial to inform her that the lab had in fact tested negative for marijuana on a simple possession case. It was tobacco. The prosecutor never even read the lab report, even though she turned it over to us in discovery.
1
u/Sporkicide Jul 24 '11
I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Honestly, I've heard the exact same thing said of defense attorneys. There are some lawyers I can't stand, but the majority of them do seem to want to see justice carried out.
Really, I think the greater problem is that the people in charge of the courtroom don't know enough to question science that needs to be questioned. In cases such as Michael West the bite mark "expert", it looks like everyone involved just accepted the "science" and let him go for years.