You Know That Conflict of Interest I Periodically Mention

I often talk about a conflict of interest the exists by having one branch of the government determine the validity of the action another branch takes. The idea of having the same organization both perform actions and watchdog itself doesn’t fly anywhere else but somehow we’re willing to accept it when such action is taken by government. It would seem that I’ve found an example of this:

A bitterly divided Supreme Court tossed out a jury verdict Tuesday won by a New Orleans man who spent 14 years on Death Row and came within weeks of execution because prosecutors had hidden a blood test and other evidence that would have proven his innocence.

The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans District Attorney’s office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove “deliberate indifference” on the part of then-District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.

How’s that for the government protecting it’s own? An innocent man spent 14 years on death row because a prosecute concealed evidence that would have acquitted the man. Instead of holding the District Attorney’s office liable for the actions taken by one of its members the Supreme Court decided to shield the office from any accountability.

This is about as disgusting as it gets ladies and gentlemen. When a government office can’t be held responsible for taking 14 years of a man’s life because of direct actions taken by one of its members then there is no recourse. Then again what can be expected from entities that have officers that shoot an innocent person and give that office nothing harsher than paid administrative leave?

The land of the free is become less so every day.