From your link:

"It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

Assuming the prosecutor believed the man to be guilty, and that the prosecutor didn't use improper methods to secure a conviction, I'd say they were competent.

Now, if they used _improper methods _to secure the conviction of an innocent man, or if they knew the man to be innocent, that's another matter. I'd agree that the prosecutor is in incompetent (in the sense of "not fit to be a officer of the court", and not in the sense of "not having the skills required to do the job").

But the post to which I replied made no mention of this evil intent, so I gave the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt.

> But the post to which I replied made no mention of this evil intent, so I gave the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt.

It made mention of incompetence. I'll give OP the benefit of it here, since that's what sparked this whole thread.

For what it's worth, I think this is the case:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14814597

Just spent a minute skimming it and it looks like an episode of Suits, except with real people's lives affected :(

Is there a metric for justice? I assume convictions are easier to measure, so that's what prosecutors want on their CV.