United Liberty

Did that title catch you off guard?  When I read that those words came from U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, I was surprised as well.

Last week, I was party to a political conversation with several others that included the subject of the death penalty and stricter mandatory sentencing for first offense felonies.  When I was among the few dissenters as those issues made their way through our conversation, some of the others questioned why I was “being soft on crime.”  After explaining that I think that there are far too many instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct in investigations and trials where new evidence, recanted testimony, or the introduction of DNA evidence exonerates an innocent man or women, I was no longer seen as “soft on crime.”  I am sure that my explanation did not sway a complete shift in the positions of the others conversing, they now have another perspective on the American criminal justice system.

This story further solidifies my stance that today’s justice system is one that seems to have a growing trend of police and prosecutors closing cases and padding statistics rather than ensuring the person jailed is the right person.  In a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Council Bluffs, Iowa prosecutors contend that their misconduct, which includes knowingly withholding evidence that pointed to a different (and white) suspect and relying on a known “liar and perjurer” in a case against two young black men over thirty years ago, should be immune from civil liability.  The official position of these Iowa prosecutors, backed by the federal government and other prosecutors nationwide, is that citizens have no expectation not to be framed by them.