Under these circumstances, one might think that confessions of error would be, if not commonplace, at least occasional. One crucial and usually overlooked factor is the deep antagonism that has grown up over time between state death penalty prosecutors and the death penalty abolitionist lawyers who seek to foil them in every case. Rather, they use every procedural and substantive trick in the book to delay executions. There can be no denying that such abolitionist tactics have angered and frustrated state prosecutors. The problem with this reciprocation, however, is simply that the ethical duties of prosecutors and defense attorneys are vastly different.
Defense attorneys are duty-bound to scratch and claw to win for their clients.
Prosecutors, by contrast, despite striking hard blows, must never lose sight of their ultimate obligation to do justice in every case. That may sound trite and perhaps overly idealistic, but it has a practical side as well. They create trust in the system, a sense that someone is being careful and exercising sound judgment, that extends far beyond any single case. And that can make a world of difference for someone like me, who is not morally opposed to the death penalty but skeptical of how it is imposed. In addition, the reluctance of state prosecutors to confess error is a clear reflection of how politics affects the death penalty.