A better question to address is how a single rogue person could do so much damage. This is institutional failure. Just going after this woman misses the big problem.
I don't disagree that there's an institutional failure, and that perhaps there are others to blame, but she has negligently affected countless lives by disregarding her oaths to uphold the law, and I believe that sort of thing should carry more penalty, not less. Also, we really, really need to start making our civil servants accountable to flagrant violations of the law, lest we have more of them lying before Congress without fear of actual penalty.
FYI, this post is egregiously oversimplifying, and I deserve ridicule for that, but I'm going to bed -- on a normal day, I wouldn't respond to this for some time.
I'm not a fan of our overly aggressive justice system, but if it is going to be overly aggressive, it needs to apply equally aggressively to the watchers as well. Any asymmetry in application of the current practices leaves far more room for abuse in the future than one that is applied equally to all parties. Justice is blind. If she is going to aggressively wield her sword, both your standard street thugs and corrupt government officials should have equal chance of getting struck by her sword.
We can't let the entire system throw her under the bus for 20+ years, while many other guilty parties get away after having been complicit or actively colluded.
From Wikipedia:
If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment,
he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this
order:[1]
1) Please continue.
2) The experiment requires that you continue.
3) It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4) You have no other choice, you must go on.
"Please examine the evidence again."
"Finding justice requires that you examine the evidence again"
"It is absolutely essential that you examine the evidence again"
"You have no other choice, you must examine the evidence again"
How do you know? Getting rehired is routine for misbehaving cops.
The risk posed by allowing her to walk free in society is too great; she should be indefinitely detained.
as far as lying about her background, criminal background checks are par for the course in this line of business. anything drug related ever, or anything indicating a propensity for lying are automatic disqualifications.
Background checks obviously didn't figure out that she was lying the first time. Why should we trust them a second time?
i think you're somehow confused about the core concept of a background check.
i think also that you've got a bone to pick, and you're trying to figure out who it is with. good luck there, little buddy.
I don't know why you think I have a bone to pick... You seem a little annoyed that I am responding to something that you did not mean to be your primary point. You are going to have to find a way to cope with that.
Indeed. I wonder how hard it would be to have random testing of the chemists' work.
and defendants should have their evidence retested by independent labs when possible.