Sorry not enough. This is one place that "an eye for an eye" should be used. Screw Ghandi's opinion on the subject. The guy was an asshole through and through who ruined two people's already ruined lives.
Yet revenge seems to be the first motivation of most people. Making things worse instead of making things better.
The prosecutor should have that on his shoulders as well.
That happened. The actual murderer killed another woman before he was caught. The cost to society is not just 25 years of this dudes life but add one dead woman to the list.
Of course you can't prove that merely exonerating one dude would somehow have automagically resulted in the cops catching the actual killer.
Our motivation to not do things is driven by consequences.
When the balance of power exists so that those who determine consequences for people can do so out of self-interest, they need to be held up to the same standards and face equal consequences themselves.
The prosecutor should have a sentence passed against him to ensure others do not follow suit with "$500 and 500 hours community service, oh and I can still be a legal consultant for a corporation - I can accept that risk for some gain"...
I'd say it's much better to change the system so that it's not in a prosecutor's self interest to convict as many people as possible.
You can only hold a prosecutor to a "perfect standard" if they have the power to ruin a person's life through self-interest. That perfect standard should only be enforced the other way as well in the circumstance that they do something wrong on this scale.
These positions attract people who wish to be wealthy or powerful. This might not be the case if they have to live up to their own standards.
Examples should be made of both sides.
Other people were certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Michael Morton murdered his wife because she would not submit to him sexually, and the most important thing to them was that he be punished more severely. Their slogan: "an eye for an eye".
See the similarity now?
In prison, Morton had to put up with forced manual labor, filthy and inhumane conditions, fight off a rapist, and lose 25 years of his life.
Anderson had to do 5 days in jail and pay a $500 fine. He should be drug behind a vehicle for several miles or until the tow rope falls off. I understand that sounds extreme, but those most powerful among us with the power to destroy whole lives on a whim should face the full brutality of society.
[1] usually a prosecutor.
His career was destroyed. That seems like a large enough disincentive to me. I cannot imagine that worse punishment would lead to better outcomes.
It seems to me rather that if you want to fight this you should look elsewhere. Punishing this person harder doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
It's not a big deal for him as a prosecutor. Perhaps it'll be uncomfortable for a bit but the real story is:
$500 fine. Acceptable risk.
500 hours community service. Acceptable risk.
Struck off... Acceptable risk.
Why?
His career was certainly not destroyed. He can quite happily fall into a cosy job in a corporate back office as a legal consultant through his contact network and still get a nice pension.
I’m pretty sure that if prosecutors knew that they will be punished like that and if they knew that punishment is somewhat likely they would rather not do it.
Consistency and a high detection rate seem like the most promising ways to improve this, not the severity of the punishment.
But Americans are obsessed with their draconian punishment. Nothing new here.
His career is not lost. This is a minor setback. If you've ever worked in corporate law departments, you'll find lots of struck off legal professionals.
They still play golf on the same courses, still get paid the same. Their little empires just move.