7 ms·
If they are concerned enough about unnecessarily ruining lives to change the Miranda warning, why not focus more on exercising the most powerful tool we have in
by downandout 9y ago
If they are concerned enough about unnecessarily ruining lives to change the Miranda warning, why not focus more on exercising the most powerful tool we have in our criminal justice system: prosecutorial discretion? After all, the cops reading the Miranda warning can only bring people to jail; it’s the prosecutors that keep them there.
Prosecutors have the ability to not file cases at all. They also have the ability to offer diversion programs, wherein accused criminals can voluntarily agree to community-based sanctions/supervision in exchange for their cases not being filed. These do exist in some jurisdictions today, but tend to be offered to a very small percentage of defendants.
In short: if they really cared about ruining lives, they’d stop trying so hard to ruin lives (in all but the most serious cases). Changing the Miranda warning may be a very small step forward, but getting prosecutors on board is the only way to make a real difference.
- sbarre 9y agoUntil they remove career-advancing incentives for prosecutors that are tied to case outcomes and numbers of filings, this probably won't happen.
- plussed_reader 9y agoAnd since CA is the example: you also remove the prosecutorial discretion when you codify things like mandatory minimum sentences.
- astral303 9y agoA+++ you speak the truth. This is another bullshut move trumpeted up as something meaningful.
- iwalsh 9y agoKing County is already using prosecutorial discretion to reduce the number of criminal prosecutions that lead to jail and have been for some time. Not claiming that we shouldn't do more work here but the Miranda warning changes are in tandem with other improvements here. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/in-king-county-justice-system-takes-a-closer-look-at-juvenile-offenders-immaturity/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/in-king-coun...
- downandout 9y agoMine was a more of a blanket statement for the entire country. In most jurisdictions, prosecutors are as vicious as the law allows them to be.
- dumbfounder 9y agoThey are vicious because they are incentivized to be so, their success is determined by their prosecution rate. If you incentivize good people to do bad things they will do bad things. The question is, what other metric can you measure them by to determine how "successful" they are? EDIT: grammars
- tomsthumb 9y agoIs it possible that metrics are a bad way to determine success relative to actually looking into and understanding the situation? The latter is certainly more work. The former is certainly a lower resolution understanding. Are we certain that any metrics communicate anything meaningful about "successful" performance in the realm of prosecution?
- chc 9y agoThere are obviously better ways to judge a public servant's performance than a handful of decontextualized numbers — but unless you're going to force people to take a test before they can vote (which, umm…), what criteria are best doesn't matter as much as what criteria are most easily communicated.
- pm90 9y agoI agree with you, but there is something that most people aren't aware of: if you're booked into a jail, that record stays with you forever, regardless of whether you are formally charged or not. I think that is what they're trying to prevent by this measure, which is absolutely amazing. Other good things: if police don't think they can make a good enough case, it will free them up to focus on more serious crimes. Youth won't be placed in the same holding cell as rapists, murderers etc. Less public resources spent on keeping people in jail.
- jstarfish 9y agoIt used to be when you were filling out job applications, you'd get asked if you were ever convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors. I've seen on more than a few applications in the last couple years, the question has changed to "have you ever been arrested for or convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors?" Scary stuff. Once you've been booked, you might as well be guilty.
- mulmen 9y agoBecause of the way our criminal justice system works employers should not be able to ask this question. If they want to ask about convictions that's fine but accusations is unreasonable.
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoThey should also fix the bail system. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/06/is_bail_unconstitutional_our_broken_system_keeps_the_poor_in_jail_and_lets.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0...
- HaseebQ 9y agoI've noticed this is an unfortunately common trope on HN. "If they actually cared about X, they'd Y!" I think what you mean to say is: "If they really cared about X, and only X, and had no political/financial/strategic impediments, they'd do Y! Therefore they clearly don't care about X." Let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good thing, let's encourage more of it, yeah?
- paulddraper 9y agoTo quote another comment "prosecutors are as vicious as the law allows them to be". That's their job. * Legislators create the law. (legislative branch) * Prosecutors sue for enforcement of the law. (executive branch) * Judgement to use JUDGEment in applying the law. (judical branch) If you have sucky laws or indescriminate judges, fix those. Don't cast dispersions on prosecutors for prosecuting laws they didn't write, for sentences they don't make. Not maintaining the balance of powers is how you wind up with out-of-whack and mismanaged governments. --- EDIT: Prosecutors are the inverse of defense attornies. Why is the DA defending this scumbag of a human being?!?! Because that's their job: provide the best possible defense for accused criminals. Likewise, prosecutors provide the best possible prosecution. Denegrating either one for their role is misunderstanding their functions in the judical system.
- taeric 9y agoBe careful though, this is an easy argument into "just following orders." Which, nobody should ever be comfortable with that argument.
- paulddraper 9y agoThat's fair. That said, if we're focusing on the most effective change like downandout, we should be changing the orders, not expecting each person to each adjust them, hopefully in appropriate ways.
- taeric 9y agoDepends on efficiency measure. In both cases, you have to train enforcement on proper enforcement. So, really, you don't save much. (Any?) It is idealistic to think you can make perfect laws that are easily understood by anyone such that training isn't necessary.
- paulddraper 9y agoAnd most importantly they should understood by judges.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoProsecutorial discretion is only that important because the rest of the criminal justice system (including the laws themselves) is so broken. A truly healthy system would not allow an overzealous DA to get far.
- 40acres 9y agoAbsolutely, there is a great Ezra Klein show podcast on this topic, I would recommend everyone listen. I'm on mobile so can't link but if you search "Ezra Klein show prosecutor discretion" it should come up.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoThis one? https://soundcloud.com/ezra-klein-show/why-prosecutors-not-cops-are-the-keys-to-criminal-justice-reform https://soundcloud.com/ezra-klein-show/why-prosecutors-not-c...
- 40acres 9y agoYes! This was an extremely enlightening listen.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- calimac 9y agoProsecutors are assholes. I've never met one with an ego proportionate to their intelligence it case strength.