Duke lacrosse

Two editorials look at the case.

This one in USA Today is so wishy-washy it is misleading.

As time ticks by in Duke's rape case, facts grow short

I'll discuss it later.

The LA Times has an outstanding op-ed.

Overzealous prosecutors, cross-examine yourselves

Prosecutorial misconduct should not surprise us. Prosecutors are lawyers (intent on victory), politicians (craving popularity) and human beings (needing to rationalize serious errors). The question is what medicine can be prescribed to treat the malignant influences on their behavior. The solution begins with the right kind of public pressure. We must judge prosecutors by much more than how many headlines and convictions they muster.

I touched on several of these points in earlier posts:

Criminal justice and the Rosenhan Experiment

The elephant in the living room

Changing minds

I also think there is at least a partial solution to the problem.

1. Bar prosecutors from running for an elected post (except for re-election) until they have been out of the DA/AG/US Atty's office for two years.

2. Require prosecutors to file a record of every discussion they have with the media. Make these logs public records available to anyone who wishes to see them.

3. Require prosecutors to sign a blanket waiver of any right to be protected by reporter shield laws.

If you get rid of political ambition and anonymous leaks, the worst sort of prosecutors will look for other work.

If you break up the cozy relationship between reporters and prosecutors, the press can cover trials and investigations fairly without the ethical ambiguity that comes from cultivating and protecting sources.