Prosecutors within in the US technically only have a responsibility to administer justice rather than convict. [1] Thats why they have to bring forward evidence which supports that the defendant is not guilty.
- The way this is practiced is may however differ depending on the particular prosecutor.
This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system.
> This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system.
It's both. My guess is that the vast majority of prosecutors do think about justice as well as about winning. But consider the incentives:
+ All lawyers tend to want a high win rate, because wins serve as a marker of professional competence. Wins help to bring in more work --- no one wants to have to sit around waiting for the phone to ring --- as well as more-prestigious and better-paying work.
+ Prosecutors in particular want the Ws to enhance (i) their chances of promotion within the government system (and, in the case of elected district attorneys, their chances of re-election) as well as (ii) their ability to move to lucrative private-sector jobs as defense attorneys, or even a TV gig as an anchor or reality-show host.
For example, the Houston Chronicle recently reported that the assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted financial fraudster R. Allen Stanford just moved to the giant Jones Day law firm to do white-collar criminal defense work. You can be sure he'll earn far more money in private practice than he ever did in government service. [1]
As another example, former Houston state prosecutor Kelly Siegler is one of the hosts of a cold-case-files series on the TNT cable-TV network; it's a safe bet that she'll make more money doing that than in her old job. [2]
- The way this is practiced is may however differ depending on the particular prosecutor.
This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system.
[1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_se...