The last thing in the world people want is justice. It might even be farther from what they want than is what they deserve. Fair and just are frequently at opposite poles. The criminal justice system is a system to promote peace and order and not justice. It used to be a system of enforcing agreed upon rules in society.
Now, not so much. It's a fraud. It's called, sarcastically, let's make a deal. Now who does the deal benefit. Well, it clearly benefits the criminal. He committed a string of armed robberies, people were hurt, and he pleads guilty to theft and gets a four-year sentence. That means he'll be out in less than two years and committing more robberies.
Who does let's make a deal harm? Well, it harms all the victims who are killed or robbed by the man who should have been locked up. But, even, worse, it harms the rare innocent man who's been charged with a serious crime. "If you'll plead guilty we can get you a four-year sentence and you'll be out in two." "But, I didn't do it." "Well, then you can go to court and if you lose you'll spend 25 years in prison. That's quite a risk to take." "But, I didn't do it." "That's not the point."
Consider the vaunted exclusionary rule. If the police err in collecting evidence, through malice, a mistake, or the exact and proper following of the law which is then changed after the fact, then the evidence of guilt may not be used. Now, keep in mind that if the person is innocent there is no evidence of guilt to be found. The bloody clothes found on the floor of the closet wouldn't have been there and the knife clotted with blood from the two victims in the house next door wouldn't have existed, either. But, in Chicago, a man was arrested for killing a neighbor and her three-year old daughter. He was convicted of murder. Then, lawyers convinced a judge that the two police officers had not had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest so the search of his room pursuant to the arrest was an error. The just agreed that while there was probable cause it was insufficient and the man was released from prison. The District Attorney could not use the clothes soaked in the blood of the two victims as evidence. The District Attorney could not use the knife clotted with blood as evidence. The District Attorney could not use the repeated confessions made by the murderer. So the man who was clearly a murderer was released. And, a few years later he killed another woman. Now who benefited from the wonderful exclusionary rule and who suffered. Surely not the attorneys for the murderer. When asked if they felt any responsibility for the woman's murder said, like a guard and Buchenwald or Hillary Clinton on defending the child rapist successfully, "It was just my job. I feel no responsibility for the woman's death."
So, how does the exclusionary rule serve "justice"?
A man was charged with a rape that the District Attorney knew had never happened. When asked why he was prosecuting the man he said it was an election year and he couldn't anger the women's groups. So, the innocent man went to trial and got a hung jury. The jury could not decide on guilt or innocence. On the one had there was an alibi that he was in another city at the time of the rape and on the other hand there was a woman crying and saying, "That's the man." So, women's groups were outraged and the innocent man was tried a second time. This time he was acquitted. The District Attorney said, "See, it all worked out the way it was supposed to. The system works." "Are you going to reimburse this innocent man the tens of thousands he spent on his defense?" "Well, no."
In this wonderful system, if a police officer makes an error, for whatever reason, he can be prosecuted criminally, he can be sued personally, and the people who employ him, the taxpayers, can also be sued. The taxpayers have some limited liability but the cop doesn't. Fortunately, he also doesn't have much money so the lawyers aren't really interested in him. But, if the prosecuting attorneys err, for whatever reason, they have immunity, period. Consider Mr. Nifong of the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case fame. What happened to him? Consider the lawyer, President Clinton, who admitted to perjuring himself. What happened to him?
Think for a moment of Sen. Harry Reid. The senator who, when asked if he regretted lying about Gov. Romney not paying taxes sneered and said, "Why? He didn't win, did he?" Before he was a senator, and before he was a lawyer, he was a police officer.
There is no criminal justice system. Justice and fairness are political constructs that really have no meaning.