Connick V. Thompson Case Summary

1. I do agree with the outcome of the Connick V. Thompson case. Thompson deserved every penny of the $14 million he was awarded and more. Thompson had to spend 18 years in prison and nearly executed for a crime he did not commit. I argue that the prosecutors on this case should have been fired for their wrong doing. I blame them because it stated that the prosecutors failed to disclose the evidence of the robber’s blood that was left on one of the victims pants. If the prosecutors would have match Thompson blood to the blood that was on the victims pants it could have prevented him from having to spend almost two decades in prison.
2. No, I do not think that civil suits that result in money damage is a good method to punish misbehaving police officers for constitutional violations. I actually think the police officers should have to pay some of that money personally from either there bank account or 401k. Normally civil suits are money against either the police department or the city so the actually police officer never has to pay any of their personal money. Police officers and prosecutors need to be held liable when they make mistakes. Especially, a mistake that could have been prevented if they had followed the rules and did what’s right. Police …show more content…
They have almost just as much authority as police officer. They are also held to a higher responsibility. We have seen prosecutors do misbehave and not be held liable for their actions. For example, when a prosecutor in Thompson case chose not to disclose the robber’s blood and he was sentenced to the death penalty. That is totally unacceptable. If the evidence was presented then the Thompson life could have been saved. Thompson had to spend 18 years in prison because the prosecutors chose not to disclose exculpatory evidence that should have been given to the defense. The amount of time a prosecutor should serve varies upon the case and what they