3 ms·
Fewer convicts == fewer prosecutors is irrelevant. Why? Because the number of prosecutors isn't the limiting factor in whether or not we can safely do a better
by mr_luc 11y ago
Fewer convicts == fewer prosecutors is irrelevant. Why?
Because the number of prosecutors isn't the limiting factor in whether or not we can safely do a better job of punishing bad prosecutors!
As you yourself stated, it's the legal apparatus of the justice system. Punishing bad prosecutors without allowing abuse and harassment would take a lot of resources, yes?
I was just pointing out that, with a smaller prison population, it wouldn't be necessary to turn judges out into the streets. Freed-up legal resources could be used to thoughtfully tackle the very real problems in the justice system.
- rayiner 11y ago> As you yourself stated, it's the legal apparatus of the justice system. Punishing bad prosecutors without allowing abuse and harassment would take a lot of resources, yes? You'd be subjecting individual prosecutors to a deluge of frivolous lawsuits, each carrying the risk of criminal prosecution. The issue isn't whether the system has the capacity to process those lawsuits, it's whether prosecutors could still do their jobs while dealing with them.
- mr_luc 11y agoYou provided that solution -- "lawsuits with a risk of criminal prosecution." That's your invention, so feel free to knock it down. I'm simply observing a truth, and was in the original comment: the enormous legal resources being wasted dealing with unnecessarily incarcerated people would be useful in dealing with prosecutorial misconduct. I won't claim it's a profound or useful insight. :) And the justice system could stand to spend more on limiting the amount of injustice it causes, an amount which the general population is starting to realize is not trivial. (Also, I notice that you've amended your original comment to be a bit more sympathetic).