Reply #148: Not at all...

[Karmakaze]

I am saying that a prosecutor has the legal and ethical obligation to view ALL the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, and make a fair determination as to whether he can prove the accused guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Often the prosecutor does have that belief and the jury still disagrees acquits.

But if the prosecutor refuses to consider exculpatory evidence when making the determination to charge and bring to trial an accused, he is perverting the course of justice. If the prosecutor KNOWS there is reasonable doubt but goes to trial anyway, he has, in my opinion committed a crime himself.

The trial process itself is so damaging to an accused person, both financially and socially, that it could be considered a form of punishment. If the prosecutor knows that the accused will be freed, then the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the prosecutor is trying to punish the accused without them having been convicted of a crime.

It all comes down to the evidence. Say one of the accused can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have been the perpetrator. That means he is INNOCENT. To try him anyway is abhorent and unjust.