Prosecutors need to stay mum
To the editor:
In America today prosecutors know that public outcry can and does effect a criminal investigation. (George Zimmerman). And the use of “What if…” scenarios spoken by investigators and reprinted endlessly makes us “think” the alleged crime was worse than it was.
We should be prosecuted on what we did, not what we could’ve done. But mostly we should not be tried, judged and hung in the court of public opinion. Defamation of character should be a criminal charge, not a civil one, and investigators should be held liable for such if they speak lies to the press. Nothing should be said to the press other than “Donald Duck arrested for…” All other “facts” should be presented in court.
After months of news reports of “facts” uttered by public defenders, the general public is so brainwashed that even eyewitnesses can begin to question what they saw or what they believe. This is not justice, it’s merely saying and doing whatever necessary so your “side” wins. There shouldn’t be sides, like some sort of game. A Psychology degree shouldn’t be used in an attempt to convince people you made the right arrest.
I know that most investigators and public defenders are doing the best they can to arrest the appropriate people, and I thank them for their attempts to make all of us safer, but they should not be stacking the odds against the arrested suspect in the newspaper as to increase the odds that they “win.” They should be more interested in proving guilt or innocence. Not winning. We trust them to remove dangerous people off our streets. We are not interested in them being proven right.
I urge all public defenders to stop and think: If this were my daughter, what would I want my colleagues to be saying to the press?