4 ms·

You are patently wrong. In fact, it is part of DoJ policy to direct prosecutors to where they should allocate their limited resources. We had a very nice exampl

by atomi 7y ago

You are patently wrong. In fact, it is part of DoJ policy to direct prosecutors to where they should allocate their limited resources. We had a very nice example of this when Obama's DoJ directed prosecutors to lower their priority on prosecuting Marijuana related crimes. Admittedly, some serious crimes will always be, and deservedly so, a high priority. But prosecutors still just work under the DoJ. And I suspect Spain has a similar hierchy.

kgwgk 7y ago
“The grant of broad discretion to prosecutors is so deeply ingrained in American law that U.S. lawyers often assume that prosecutorial discretion is inevitable. In fact, some countries in Europe and Latin America adhere to the opposite principle of "mandatory prosecution," maintaining, at least in principle, that prosecutors have a duty to bring any charge that is supported by evidence developed by the police or presented by citizens.” https://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html https://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-D... “The legality principle commands that every case in which there is enough evidence and in which no legal hindrances prohibit prosecution has to be brought to court. Adherence to the legality principle in the procedural sense means that the prosecution service cannot exercise any discretion over the prosecutorial decision. Its role is limited to the legal assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence against the suspect. Other considerations – what are known as public interest factors in opportunity systems – are not considered as factors that prosecutors are allowed to deploy in their decisions. Rather, the public interest is regarded as a consideration for the court which might be reflected in the verdict or the penalty imposed.” http://www.law.gov.cy/law/lawoffice.nsf/0/A5FCDD28D5A9112CC225744200302F80/$file/Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Prosecution%20Systems%20-%20Part%20II%20-%20The%20Role%20of%20Prosecution%20Services%20in%20Investigation%20and%20Prosecution%20Principles%20and%20Policies.doc http://www.law.gov.cy/law/lawoffice.nsf/0/A5FCDD28D5A9112CC2...
pimterry 7y ago
> You are patently wrong. Ironically, you are patently wrong. As the other poster mentions, mandatory prosecution exists in many parts of the world, and Spain is indeed one of these places. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0334:FIN:EN:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2... is the clearest English-language reference I can find. Specifically: > The Member States’ criminal systems are divided on the issue of mandatory or discretionary prosecution. The discretionary principle is applied in Belgium, France, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Italy and Portugal the mandatory prosecution principle applies. > The mandatory prosecution principle is that the prosecution authorities must act – even if no complaint has been lodged – where they suspect that an offence has been committed. Prosecuting this is not optional. That's not to say the government could not have applied pressure somehow if they wished of course (though in theory that's strongly discouraged), or even attempted to change the law entirely. Doing so publicly in any way though would pretty seriously harm their election changes on a national level (election is coming on November 11th).
- atomi 7y ago
  Well outside the US it seems I stand corrected. I'm from the US and I find the notion of mandatory prosecution nonsensical. There is a limit to the workload a prosecutor can handle and prioritizing crimes is just one way to make sure more serious crimes get the manpower needed to prosecute. But thank you for pointing out that, also, the laws can always be changed which ultimately is political.
wbronitsky 7y ago
Wow, what a terrible way to have a discussion with someone. There are so many more ways to state this than to stick out your finger and say "YOU WRONG". It becomes impossible to read any discussions on this site when people take this tone.
- atomi 7y ago
  If you trully cared about facts you'd appreciate being corrected and overlook your distaste. Tone should have no bearing unless you just want to vent your own frustration. I see highly downvoted comments being factually correct much too often.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    I wonder, do you find that this tone and tactic encourages people to continue to discuss things with you?
    - atomi 7y ago
      I don't see a problem with my tone. It's all in your head as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it's you who is being confrontational and adding nothing to the topic of prosecutorial discretion. You can choose to post your opinion in edgewise here (for others to read), but I'm no longer responding to you.

by atomi 7y ago

kgwgk 7y ago

“The grant of broad discretion to prosecutors is so deeply ingrained in American law that U.S. lawyers often assume that prosecutorial discretion is inevitable. In fact, some countries in Europe and Latin America adhere to the opposite principle of "mandatory prosecution," maintaining, at least in principle, that prosecutors have a duty to bring any charge that is supported by evidence developed by the police or presented by citizens.” https://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html https://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-D... “The legality principle commands that every case in which there is enough evidence and in which no legal hindrances prohibit prosecution has to be brought to court. Adherence to the legality principle in the procedural sense means that the prosecution service cannot exercise any discretion over the prosecutorial decision. Its role is limited to the legal assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence against the suspect. Other considerations – what are known as public interest factors in opportunity systems – are not considered as factors that prosecutors are allowed to deploy in their decisions. Rather, the public interest is regarded as a consideration for the court which might be reflected in the verdict or the penalty imposed.” http://www.law.gov.cy/law/lawoffice.nsf/0/A5FCDD28D5A9112CC225744200302F80/$file/Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Prosecution%20Systems%20-%20Part%20II%20-%20The%20Role%20of%20Prosecution%20Services%20in%20Investigation%20and%20Prosecution%20Principles%20and%20Policies.doc http://www.law.gov.cy/law/lawoffice.nsf/0/A5FCDD28D5A9112CC2...

pimterry 7y ago

> You are patently wrong. Ironically, you are patently wrong. As the other poster mentions, mandatory prosecution exists in many parts of the world, and Spain is indeed one of these places. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0334:FIN:EN:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2... is the clearest English-language reference I can find. Specifically: > The Member States’ criminal systems are divided on the issue of mandatory or discretionary prosecution. The discretionary principle is applied in Belgium, France, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Italy and Portugal the mandatory prosecution principle applies. > The mandatory prosecution principle is that the prosecution authorities must act – even if no complaint has been lodged – where they suspect that an offence has been committed. Prosecuting this is not optional. That's not to say the government could not have applied pressure somehow if they wished of course (though in theory that's strongly discouraged), or even attempted to change the law entirely. Doing so publicly in any way though would pretty seriously harm their election changes on a national level (election is coming on November 11th).

atomi 7y ago
Well outside the US it seems I stand corrected. I'm from the US and I find the notion of mandatory prosecution nonsensical. There is a limit to the workload a prosecutor can handle and prioritizing crimes is just one way to make sure more serious crimes get the manpower needed to prosecute. But thank you for pointing out that, also, the laws can always be changed which ultimately is political.

wbronitsky 7y ago

Wow, what a terrible way to have a discussion with someone. There are so many more ways to state this than to stick out your finger and say "YOU WRONG". It becomes impossible to read any discussions on this site when people take this tone.

atomi 7y ago
If you trully cared about facts you'd appreciate being corrected and overlook your distaste. Tone should have no bearing unless you just want to vent your own frustration. I see highly downvoted comments being factually correct much too often.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  I wonder, do you find that this tone and tactic encourages people to continue to discuss things with you?
  - atomi 7y ago
    I don't see a problem with my tone. It's all in your head as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it's you who is being confrontational and adding nothing to the topic of prosecutorial discretion. You can choose to post your opinion in edgewise here (for others to read), but I'm no longer responding to you.