takeliberty

Nietsche the Prophet

In Uncategorized on November 11, 2013 at 6:56 pm

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. ”

  – Friedrich Nietzsche

The headline suggested cause for hope, but it was, effectively, a lie. 

“For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man”

The article, attributed to , the Director of the Ohio Innocence Project, and a “Carmichael Professor of Law” at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, pointed out that a Texas judge – like most judges, a former prosecutor – would “spend 10 days in jail”, as well as relinquishing his law “license“,  and doing “community service”.

Thus, as published at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html?utm_hp_ref=tw, the hopeful headline contains 2 lies; the first, a lie of degree; the second (which also serves to explain the first) is the reason.

You see, Ken Anderson, the miscreant subject of Godsey’s HuffPo article, wasn’t convicted for his crime: causing an innocent man to go to prison for 25 years by withholding evidence that may have cleared his victim, “including statements from the crime’s only eyewitness” that his target wasn’t the killer. 

A companion HuffPo article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/ken-anderson_n_4242431.html, discloses that Ken Anderson had been looking at “up to 10 years in prison if convicted of tampering with evidence”, and cut a sweet plea deal to “do” 1 day for each of the 365 days he “could” be doing; 1 day for each 915 days his victim was wrongfully imprisoned.  And you can bet that he’ll “do his time” – his ten whole days – away from convicts who have done much less, and in relative comfort. 

Ken Anderson wasn’t even required to admit he stole a man’s most productive years. In fact, according to the companion article, he “apologized to [his victimfor what he called failures in the system but has said he believes there was no misconduct.”

And that’s most outrageous thing of it all.  He knew he had the evidence.  He knew he was required to share the evidenceAnd he deliberately withheld the evidence to send an innocent man to prison.

The saddest thing of it is that a law professor believes that Ken Anderson “was actually punished in a meaningful way”.

There is only one “meaningful” punishment for something like this:  Ken Anderson should serve a sentence equal to his victim’s.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: