Get real: "you could make the case" (?!) that the analyst should have contacted the innocent guy's attorney. Let's be plain here: Holding onto a job does not justify imprisoning an innocent man for 11 years.

Got it?

Bob... Years ago I worked as a junior employee for a public agency. One of the staff in another office completed an environmental analysis of a complex land use issue. The analyst was subsequently directed to change his conclusion and to delete any analysis supporting his initial conclusion. The staff member, although understandably upset, complied. I, too, was upset but I left an anonymous telephone message with a local newspaper reporter. The newspaper investigated and reported the true facts. Subsequently there was an investigation within my agency as to who leaked the story to the press. Being so junior, I was not suspected. Unfortunately, the other staff member was accused by management of leaking the story and he soon left for another job. I've always felt guilty about my role in this matter. At the same time I felt I took the ethical path. Did I?

"... the goal is to convict someone ... anyone ... of the crime."

Or in some locales, of ANY crime. I swear, the legislatures propose so much new law, making up new crimes as they go along.

And it is always easier for law enforcement to entrap and convict someone of a sexy shiney new crime than to find a serial burgler, bank robber, murderer, horse thief, rapist, or whatnot the old fashioned way.

Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsberg had the right idea int he 70's when she posited that, rather than throwing people in jail because they legally married in one state and then moved to another with their child bride, perhaps the answer was to lower the age of consent across the land to the lowest age of any state (twelve).

This would take care of the "full faith and credit" problem, and let law enforcement get back to doing something useful, like finding serial burglers, bank robbers, murderers, horse thiefs, rapists, or whatnot the old fashioned way.

Get Real? Good advice. When life is always black and white, it sure makes things easier.

Consider a hard working guy (doing what he likes, hopefully, and making a little money), with mouths to feed and a home to pay for. He suspects that there may be credibility problems with a DNA sample taken from a man who has already confessed.

He can put his reputation on the line in Chicago, where politics are often more real than facts. Sounds like a situation fraught with potential for positive results. Is he really obligated to wager much of what he holds as valuable for a person he doesn't know (and who may actually be a criminal) and a situation where he has a very small voice?

While it is a tragedy that an innocent man spent years incarcerated, let's give a little blame to the attorneys and judicial system in general. You can't automatically crucify the DNA techie.

I'd like to think that the guy at the bottom of the pile can make a difference every time. But, the reality is that he has to choose his battles wisely, too. Very few people have the ability to champion every cause they see and live to tell about it.

When my kids cry "That's not fair!," the correct response is "Welcome to the real world!" Realize that the lab tech and the PM's employee are also innocent victims. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sure I would be more than a bit annoyed if I was the person going to jail or left holding the bag due to someone else's failure to do their job properly. However, I would also be a bit annoyed if my family's livelihood were put in jeopardy by doing something that caused me to lose my job and maybe required me to move somewhere else in order to start over.

I think you (Bob) had a commentary a few years ago involving a rhetorical question of a vehicle rolling down hill without brakes. The reader is the driver and no matter which way he/she turns, someone is going to be killed. Who do you aim for, who do you avoid? No matter what you do, you will have participated in causing others to suffer. Each individual makes their decision and hopes they can live with the consequences. The rest of us pray we never experience that situation. Welcome to the real world.

The world is not fair. great rationale. People like you made it that way.

It seems we are living in a world of Marshall's; the effect of an action on their personal convenience is the sole determinant of what is right and wrong. That's a pretty f*cked up world.

Perhaps the approapriate action here was the traditional 'anonymous tip' - one to the defense attorney, another to the local media (not that the press is worth much these days). maybe some to other organizations (some of the defendent's supporters), and _maybe_ something could have been done.

Doing nothing; well, you amde the world...

Great retort ‘C’mon.’ You talk big for someone who doesn't have the guts to post your name along with your opinion. I never mentioned what I would do because I don’t know what I’d do. I’ve never been in circumstances as serious as mentioned in the article. I have tilted at my share of windmills and suffered the fallout. Do you really believe that a lone person who has already expressed disagreement with the rest of the powers that be won’t then be singled out when the defense’s attorney or media receives an anonymous tip? This is akin to believing that just a pair of eye glasses are enough to disguise Superman as Clark Kent.

The world isn’t messed up; SOME people are messed up (BTW - there are so many words that are better than your choice). That brings me right back to my original point, You WILL encounter bad people in your lifetime. Hopefully, you maintain good values while doing what you can assisting others.

I guess it depends on whether you believe in justice or not.

Marshall's right; talk is cheap. The prbolem is, too many people want others to pay the price for their 'righteous cause', but aren't willing to suffer the consiquences themselves.

As someone who'se been on both sides of the issue, I won't make it any easier to find out who I am than I must. The lesson of this life is that in this society, right and wrong matter less than power and position (and media hype).

A sad commentary on America.

When I worked in engineering, the question of "what to do ?" was a lot less hypothetical than it is for me in IT.

When a failure of your firm's products carry serious consequences for people, what to do when faced with malfeasance deserves serious consideration.

Before I graduated college, my wife and I agreed that however important my job was, sleeping soundly at night was more important.

The nice thing about the concept of "over-arching principles" is that they make some decisions simple. I did NOT say "easy," I said "simple."

Even today in IT, I and my folks have a pyramidal hierachy on the wall. At the base -- most important -- is "Personnel safety and regulatory compliance." The second level is "Production." The third level is "Business continuity." And so on.

My staff know that the only way to get to level two is to have satisfied level one, and likewise on to level three. And that they are held to it, and shielded by it.

I have told them that if they use that as their compass, I will never fire them. And in fact if they do get fired while complying with that, I'll be ahead of them out the door.

One advantage of driving an old roach of a car, and living in a modest home well below my means -- my wife and I have deliberately created a situation where I can take nearly a 50% cut in pay and survive indefinitely. I don't want to -- I enjoy my job, respect my people, and I feel I have a lot to contribute. But there is nothing in my job worth my own self-respect. Nor anything worth sacrificing justice.

Oh, and I have something else up on my wall, to remind myself and others:

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, and the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered the most that has made it possible for evil to triumph" -- Haile Selaisse