[lefteye]

Tyme wrote:

We have an adversarial system, where prosecutors are tasked with, and rewarded for, getting a conviction. There are some limits; for instance, they have to disclose exculpatory evidence (and when they don't and are caught, there are usually consequences), but they are not expected to try to ensure that justice is done; they are expected to get convictions. "Justice" is up to juries (often stupid, poorly informed, or disinterested) or judges, relying on cherry-picked legal citations (because like the UK we have a common law system relying heavily on case law, not a simpler civil law system).

Ethics rules require prosecutors to seek justice. A criminal defendant may waive the right to a trial by jury and allow the judge to decide the case. The jury selection process allows attorneys to eliminate some potential jurors. Judges apply the law to the facts; the law includes statutes, rules, regulations and appellate court decisions.

Glenn, I realize this post is not focused on the background check issue, but as a retired government attorney I felt the need to correct these errors in Tyme's post. And, I felt this public response was more appropriate than a PM.