Thread by @ConLawWarrior

As someone who came to criminal justice reform after nearly two decades in constitutional law, the thing I can't get over is how utterly cavalier police and prosecutors can sometimes (emphasis on "sometimes"—take it easy) be in cases involving matters of life and death. /1

For example, when there's been a heinous murder and the killer is still on the loose with every indication that he (and it's almost always a he) is likely to kill again, they will sometimes arrest a suspect on the flimsiest of evidence—or, worse, despite overwhelming... /2

evidence of innocence—just to close the case. I'm reading about just such a case in Texas right now. DNA analysis unambiguously excluded the man they'd arrested for the murder, but they soldiered on trying to prosecute him anyway while the trail of the true killer went cold. /3

Finally, 9 MONTHS after receiving the DNA report that categorically excluded their suspect (who spent most of that time in jail), they dropped the charges. I did a lot of malpractice work as a young lawyer, and a doc who screwed up this bad would never practice medicine again. /4

But nothing—NOTHING—will happen to the police and prosecutors who destroyed the life of an innocent man through their own professional incompetence and allowed a killer to walk free for nine months after receiving a report that made clear they had the wrong man. /5

Anyway, that's how it typically works in our system when people commit law-enforcement malpractice, and it's not right. /end

Epilogue: Read this excellent book by a former prosecutor-turned-innocence advocate for a shocking number of stories like this and a discussion of the psychology behind the screwups. So much of it boils down to their complete lack of skin in the game.
amazon.com/Blind-Injustic…