Crime and Punishment Rachel Lucas is angry that the defense attorneys for convicted child rapist David Westerfield knew that he was guilty before the trial started, yet attempted to get him off the hook anyway by smearing the parents of the victim. We know that the defense knew of Westerfield's guilt beforehand both because of the closing defense statement (in which Westerfield was said to be "a good man except for one three day weekend of terror") and because the defense attempted to negotiate a plea bargain in which Westerfield would lead the police to Danielle's body . Obviously, had Westerfield been wrongfully released, it would be a travesty of justice. We should realize that the public's interest is in seeing justice served, not in defending a patently guilty criminal or convicting a falsely accused innocent. Thus, why not pass symmetric laws: 1) If the defense knows of evidence that proves the defendant's guilt, the defense must report said evidence to the judge and the prosecution under penalty of perjury and disbarment. 2) If the prosecution knows of evidence that exonerates the defendant, the prosecution must report said evidence to the judge and the defense under penalty of perjury and disbarment. Perhaps Professors Reynolds and Volokh can remark on the practicality/constitutionality of these laws, but at first glance I can't see anything inappropriate about them. In both cases justice will be served.