3 ms·
Of course it is unethical, as is piling on 20+ separate charges for a single act and then doing a plea deal for one. That's the point: if you are being unethic
by revelation 11y ago
Of course it is unethical, as is piling on 20+ separate charges for a single act and then doing a plea deal for one.
That's the point: if you are being unethical already, does it hurt you to occasionally steamroll someone higher up the food chain in the same manner? That's just keeping the peace.
But to ignore vast abuses on the one side, and then list everything out of the UN charter when it comes to why you can't prosecute bank executives - come on..
- rayiner 11y agoI agree piling on charges just in hopes of extracting a plea deal is unethical.[1] However you're talking about a totally different sort of unethical prosecution. When the government steamrolls a drug dealer, they have a ton of physical evidence of an illegal act. You can debate whether those acts should be illegal, or the justice of the sentences, but a jury would definitely convict on the basis of the evidence. What you're talking about is charging people for crimes when you can't even articulate what specific acts they did were illegal or present concrete evidence of illegal acts a jury could convict on. [1] A lot of that practice was the result of DOJ policies that required prosecutors to bring charges to maximize the sentence. Obama recently eliminated that policy allowing prosecutors to use their discretion.