Actually, I'm told that a shocking number of prisoners request DNA tests that confirm their guilt; they have nothing to lose, and apparently want to gamble on the slim possibility of a miracle exoneration. But this seems irrelevant to me.
McArdle does not provide a shred of proof of this statement, which she instantly calls irrelevant anyway.
If they get a DNA test and it proves them guilty, we've lost little time or money. If they get a DNA test and it exonerates them, we've set an innocent man free. DNA tests would have to cost $1 million apiece for me to consider that a bad bargain.
So why bother with this useless post?
It is, of course, a bad bargain for a justice system that suddenly reveals how many innocent men prosecutors have sent to death row...
So Megan can call the government incompetent.
...and if I were a prosecutor I've no doubt I could find any number of excellent reasons that we should not double-check my work.
It's not a good idea to admit that you're a shoddy worker whose work would not stand up to double-checking. That's why I'm here.
But making prosecutors feel better about themselves is not a legitimate goal of criminal policy.
Oooh, snap! to you, prosecutors, who want innocent people to go to jail so they can feel good about themselves! Because Megan says so!
"But making prosecutors feel better about themselves is not a legitimate goal of criminal policy."
What in the hell is that insipid sentence supposed to even mean? Is it Megan trying (and failing) to be funny again, or does she think this is some kind of insightful observation? It's an awkward and stupid sentence.
It's like she just needed to vent a little bile. Who knows, maybe a relative is being prosecuted for something.
Post a Comment