Durham's Double Standard

Ari Kaufman penned this thoughtful article about the Duke rape case in Durham, North Carolina, where District Attorney Mike Nifong now appears to be the only criminal in the case.

Prosecutors like Nifong have no problem prosecuting factually innocent defendants. The problem is that prosecutors often rely on conviction rates as evidence of their effectiveness. But while cops who plant evidence and violate civil rights can be sued, fired, or incarcerated, prosecutors rarely endure a bad comment from fellow lawyers who pretend to supervise them at the State Bar.

Prosecutors argue that they cannot perform their duties without these legal protections. I disagree. Cops perform their duties every day knowing that they could be prosecuted for using excessive force or violating someone’s civil rights. Why aren’t prosecutors be held to the same standard?

I don’t know if the Duke players are guilty or innocent, but if the witnesses’ statements are true, the prosecutor has more than enough evidence to drop the charges. And if Nifong concealed exculpatory evidence to make his case stronger, it suggests malpractice tantamount to planting evidence.

Cops who manipulate evidence to prosecute the factually innocent are fired. Prosecutors who do the same thing are protected. Why do they need the double standard? Aren’t there enough morally-coherent lawyers who don’t need these kinds of protections?
Oops! I think my question just answered itself…