8 ms·

Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges. It's pretty clear that they were acting under the color of law, given that the State a

by vivekd 7y ago

Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges. It's pretty clear that they were acting under the color of law, given that the State admitted they hired them. If they went beyond the contract, it seems pretty clear they did it under the mistaken but reasonable belief that they had proper authority to enter. I understand ignorance of law isn't a defense but ignorance of the facts is and it seems pretty clear that's what happened here. It seems unreasonable and unnecessary to hold them in jail and unnecessary to take this to trial. I don't see how proceeding with a prosecution like this could be in the public interest.

peteretep 7y ago
> Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges There in Canada, prosecutors are not elected, because that would be completely batshit insane.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I've up-voted this because I agree with you that the election of prosecutors (and judges) is a bad idea. I suspect you are getting down-voted mostly due to your poor choice of terminology.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    It is because they are being "Canada Nice" :-) "fucking Batshit Insane " is what they should have said.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Wait, who elects prosecutors? The public or some other group? I've never heard of going to the voting ballots for anything other than a referendum or electing various levels of legislators (typically municipal, state/province/departement/district/whatever, federal/national, and perhaps transnational like European; in NL we also vote on water boards but they don't really matter as far as I can tell).
  - peteretep 7y ago
    > Wait, who elects prosecutors? Among others, the fine people of Dallas County, Iowa, where this drama is taking place.
  - twic 7y ago
    Americans love elections! They elect sheriffs [1], prosecutors [2], and often judges [3]. Imagine, you could be arrested, charged, and sentenced by whoever the general public thought had the best hair! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#Election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#... [2] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judge.4.13194819.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judg...
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Well, you know - everyone thought that everyone should decide - the unwashed masses as it were. Would you prefer that voting went back to just the white educated land owners? Does that sound any more "just"?
      - twic 7y ago
        I would prefer that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges are appointed by administrative processes which minimise political influence, as they are in civilised countries.
- golergka 7y ago
  Why is this insane? At least it's some kind of accountability to the public.
  - sterlind 7y ago
    It creates perverse incentives, and it actually reduces accountability. The prosecutor's job is to represent the State by applying the law to the facts. The public doesn't pay attention to the details of every individual case. The Public looks for narratives like "tough on crime," or "protecting the children," or "cracking down on illegals" or "protecting minorities," depending on where voters fall on the political spectrum. Elected politicians put their voters’ demands first, but prosecutors are supposed to put the law and department policy first. Prosecutors would be tempted to prosecute based on political will - not guilt and evidence - which is unjust by definition. And since they're elected, they don't have to answer to the AG or city council - just the polls. It's better to elect reps that hire/confirm, supervise and set policy for prosecutors instead.
    - refurb 7y ago
      You’re just swapping one master for another. In states that don't elect judges, they are appointed. Who makes a decision on who is appointed? The politicians of course. And you’re never going to get appointed unless someone owes you it.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    They get re-elected by jailing people, so there's a built-in incentive to pander to the prejudices of the majority and convict the innocent.
    - golergka 7y ago
      Do they? Here, the justice system is completely unaccountable to the public, and if persecutors would be elected (in open elections), they would win by not jailing innocents.
      - 7y ago
acollins1331 7y ago
It's in the interest of the lawyers working for the state to enrich themselves and their lawyer friends who will probably take the other side of the case. Money for lawyers everywhere! America works like this because our laws are written by them.
- anotherman554 7y ago
  Government lawyers aren't paid by the hour or the case.

by vivekd 7y ago

peteretep 7y ago

> Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges There in Canada, prosecutors are not elected, because that would be completely batshit insane.

shkkmo 7y ago
I've up-voted this because I agree with you that the election of prosecutors (and judges) is a bad idea. I suspect you are getting down-voted mostly due to your poor choice of terminology.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  It is because they are being "Canada Nice" :-) "fucking Batshit Insane " is what they should have said.
lucb1e 7y ago
Wait, who elects prosecutors? The public or some other group? I've never heard of going to the voting ballots for anything other than a referendum or electing various levels of legislators (typically municipal, state/province/departement/district/whatever, federal/national, and perhaps transnational like European; in NL we also vote on water boards but they don't really matter as far as I can tell).
- peteretep 7y ago
  > Wait, who elects prosecutors? Among others, the fine people of Dallas County, Iowa, where this drama is taking place.
- twic 7y ago
  Americans love elections! They elect sheriffs [1], prosecutors [2], and often judges [3]. Imagine, you could be arrested, charged, and sentenced by whoever the general public thought had the best hair! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#Election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#... [2] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judge.4.13194819.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judg...
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Well, you know - everyone thought that everyone should decide - the unwashed masses as it were. Would you prefer that voting went back to just the white educated land owners? Does that sound any more "just"?
    - twic 7y ago
      I would prefer that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges are appointed by administrative processes which minimise political influence, as they are in civilised countries.
golergka 7y ago
Why is this insane? At least it's some kind of accountability to the public.
- sterlind 7y ago
  It creates perverse incentives, and it actually reduces accountability. The prosecutor's job is to represent the State by applying the law to the facts. The public doesn't pay attention to the details of every individual case. The Public looks for narratives like "tough on crime," or "protecting the children," or "cracking down on illegals" or "protecting minorities," depending on where voters fall on the political spectrum. Elected politicians put their voters’ demands first, but prosecutors are supposed to put the law and department policy first. Prosecutors would be tempted to prosecute based on political will - not guilt and evidence - which is unjust by definition. And since they're elected, they don't have to answer to the AG or city council - just the polls. It's better to elect reps that hire/confirm, supervise and set policy for prosecutors instead.
  - refurb 7y ago
    You’re just swapping one master for another. In states that don't elect judges, they are appointed. Who makes a decision on who is appointed? The politicians of course. And you’re never going to get appointed unless someone owes you it.
- pjc50 7y ago
  They get re-elected by jailing people, so there's a built-in incentive to pander to the prejudices of the majority and convict the innocent.
  - golergka 7y ago
    Do they? Here, the justice system is completely unaccountable to the public, and if persecutors would be elected (in open elections), they would win by not jailing innocents.
    - 7y ago

acollins1331 7y ago

It's in the interest of the lawyers working for the state to enrich themselves and their lawyer friends who will probably take the other side of the case. Money for lawyers everywhere! America works like this because our laws are written by them.

anotherman554 7y ago
Government lawyers aren't paid by the hour or the case.