Who is worse: A prosecutor trying to have the clearly innocent condemned or defense attorney trying to justify the clearly guilty?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Most recent famous case in the U. S. the prosecutor wanted to have the young man Kyle Rittenhouse condemned to prison when he clearly by video evidence was defending himself.

Old famous case where O. J. Simpson attorneys tried to prove his innocence when all the evidence clearly points to him being the murderer of his ex wife and her friend.

Prosecutor is worse

Defense attorney is worse

Both are equally bad

Other

[Anonymous]

Prosecutors have an absolute duty to seek justice (whether that's guilty or not guilty), though they often act solely out of political interest; defense attorneys have an absolute duty to use every legal means to have their client found not guilty (which is not the same as innocent).

I think public defenders should have the same exact budget as prosecutors in trying a case. That would very quickly reduce the ridiculous amounts of money prosecutors spend persecuting people just to get a conviction, or convict a particular person, and level the playing field in everyday criminal cases.

[monorprise]

Prosecutors has a duty to control crime, that means if they are wasting time and money on someone they know is not guilty they are not using the same on the many others who they more creditably believe are.

It was never the sole responsibility of the court to decide who is guilty or innocent (or constitutional for that matter), it is the executive who first makes that judgement.

The executive either does that well, or they waste their time and resources on the innocent.

Many such executives today seem to be deliberately doing the latter in political prosecution rather than warring about the countless criminals caught red handed.

[ApplePie409]

The prosecutors are worse. Kyle brought a first aid kit with him. Why would he do that?

[NamerOfStars]

Better than ten guilty men go free than an innocent one to jail.

Although I'd point out- once again- that while Rittenhouse is clear on the murder charge, he WAS unambiguously illegally transporting the guns he brought with him to hunt rioters. The judge dropped those charges, since they're so much less important, but the guy is hardly "innocent".

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

His crime was bringing a gun across state lines, but of murder he's 100% innocent.

[NamerOfStars]

No, that's my point. He's "not guilty"- not "innocent". Innocent people don't go out looking for a chance to shoot others.

[AviatorTom]

Neither is worse. That is the way the American justice system works, and each attorney would be doing their job. The Prosecutor is supposed to do whatever they can to get a conviction, and the Defense attorney is supposed to do whatever they can to get an acquittal. The judge and/or jury decides who wins.

[OtterMan68]

the prosecutor cannot do anything unethical like keep evidence of a suspect's innocence from the defense attorney. If the prosecutor has evidence the suspect is not-guilty, he has to share it

[AviatorTom]

@OtterMan68 Of course, everyone in the court is required to remain ethical, but that doesn't mean they can't emphasize their side of the case.

[Anonymous]

The prosecutor is worse, as he is clearly wasting public resources going after the wrong guy rather than many more plausibly correct people.

Its the job of a defense attorneys to force the prosecutor to prove he has the right guy. This presumes both the court is impartial and prosecutor has a serous case which is unfortunately not always the cases in many one sided jurisdictions.

The prosecutor in cooperation with the other parts of the executive nonetheless is responsible for upholding the law in said region. Said executive could have gone after anyone in the community for any reason and indeed given limitless resources could go after everyone.

This of course would be extremely costly for everyone both in paying both executive (including prosecutor) and defense bills in both time and money.

So in a free country we expect the executive (including the prosecutor) to only prosecute people they genuinely think are guilty, and that includes the arresting aspect of the executive. There is no point in doing one if your not going to do the other.

[KrisKris81]

They're both just doing their jobs. Everyone likes a challenge and, for a lawyer, that's a challenge. Things are not always as they seem and lawyers like these will challenge popular perception. If they didn't, criminals framing people or committing some kind of clever fraud would be more likely to get away with it and more like to keep doing it.

[OtterMan68]

so if a prosecutor knows a supsect is not guilty, he has no obligation to share his knowledge of why with the defense counsel?

[monorprise]

@KrisKris81 The prosecutor is part of the executive and their job is to control crime. If they are wasting time and goverment money going after guys they know are not guilty. They are not using the same money and time finding and prosecuting the guys who are guilty. So not its not their job to go after people they know are innocent.

Its the job of the defense attorney to force them to prove he is guilty as they work for the defense.

[Serkee]

The prosecutor is worse. I'd rather a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished.

[abc3643]

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't "clearly innocent" because he had no business as a minor crossing state lines with a firearm. His mother should be in prison for enabling that.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

He was clearly innocent of what he was being charged with. Carrying an illegal gun across state lines isn't the same being accused of murder.

[abc3643]

Carrying an illegal gun across state lines is a felony. And when you kill someone while commiting that felony, that's usually the death sentence.

[abc3643]

He was a minor so I will cut him slack but his mother should not have enabled him and taken him across state lines.

She should be executed.

[OddBeMe]

Defense attorney is doing their job in an adverbial justice system. Is that the best? Human behavior suggests yes, but history of exonerations says no.

For every guilty client a defense attorney argues for means he can argue (probably pro bono) for an innocent client.

[handsomelad70]

There's a saying "Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted," so BY FAR the former.

[OtterMan68]

This

[Paul_in_Indy]

I’ll tell you who is worse: the person mischaracterizing the adversarial court system as Clickbait.

[Pete671]

Prosecutor is far worse, ALL defendants have the right to a FAIR trial, no matter how heinous their alleged crime,,, and when that fair trial proves their guilt no-one can claim they have been treated unfairly,,,

[exitseven]

Prosecutor is worse. . They are supposed to serve justice. A defense attorney is supposed to give his client the best defense possible

[Pterodon]

Trying to frame the innocent is much worse. Thou shalt not bear false witness

[AngryCarl]

The prosecutor's job is to prove the accused is guilty. If he or she can't prove that, then in theory they should go free. The defence attorney's job is to represent his client, even if they are guilty he can argue for the minimum sentence.

[shortster]

It is better that 100 murderers go free than an innocent man goes to jail. So prosecutors.

[boobliker]

attorneys are here to make money and most make loads if money

[Twalli]

You argurcyour case, the better you do the better lawyer you are