8 ms·

I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see the o

I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see the other side of the issue. I understand why people want warrants. But I believe people thing it's as easy as filling it out and walking in and getting it signed. As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for hours to pay for traffic tickets. Yes, they have to wait to give the government money. Police officers wait in court to get warrants read and signed. They wait hours. Sometime they have to come back days later to be seen by a judge. In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges, courts, and police officers. As it stands now, a warrant requirement will make it impractical to prosecute lower level offenses due to the time and resources it would take to get a warrant. For instance, stalking cases, restraining order violations (with electronic contact), criminal threats, etc. will go unprosecuted. That leaves a whole lot of crime victims with very little recourse.

illumen 15y ago
Or, you could aim for less prosecutions of crimes that don't matter, and could aim for fixing social problems that cause people to commit crimes. For example, work towards reducing homelessness. Towards harm minimization policies for drug users. For example, do not allow media companies or other corporate companies to abuse criminal courts to collect civil debts. Work on fixing those problems, and then there will be less waste of the courts time.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Not to be a smartass, but isn't that what public defenders do? Remember, politicians pass budgets, make policy, and are ultimately the authors of laws. Prosecutors can advocate for the sort of policies you describe up to a point (our AG in California inclines this way, and her Republican opponent at the last election had a variety of reformist ideas too). But it's specialized work. If the DoJ assigns an attorney to prosecute cybercrime, there's not much s/he can do about the the drug war or reforming the copyright system. At the higher levels, prosecution is more of a political position - a district attorney, attorney general, or a US attorney does have a fair amount of flexibility and influence over policy. But there are relatively few of those jobs, and if you don't have one you don't have a great deal of freedom as a junior prosecutor to go off in a different direction. Even high level prosecutors are subject to a great deal of political pressure from legislators. The other thing to bear in mind is the cost. The private-sector legal industry can pay very well indeed. Wages in the public sector are pretty dismal by comparison. Federal judges are paid less (~$145k) than first-year associates at a big law firm (~$160k). The Chief Justice of the United States is paid about $220k. It's a terrible deal, and all the underlying budgets are badly underfunded as well. Not just pay; last time I looked the DoJ's 2012 budget for electronic discovery (document management systems) was only $20 million. Corporations often spend more on a single case. Most of the DoJ budget goes to law enforcement and prisons; attorneys get 6-7% and the court system gets about 3%. DoJ gets about $30 billion in total; to put that in context, DHS gets closer to $60 billion. In many ways, we get what we pay for.
joe_the_user 15y ago
As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for hours to pay for traffic tickets. So you're saying the justice system needs to take shortcuts with people's civil liberties because it is too disorganized/broken to do things the right way? Yeah, that pretty much like the way the government is thinking. If there is lots of really important spying that the police really need to do on ordinary citizens, I suggest they lobby for the repeal of a number of drug laws. That would save them a lot of spying too.
jnhnum1 15y ago
Rights against unreasonable search cannot be waived just because it's inconvenient for you to get a warrant.
ericHosick 15y ago
Perhaps there are too many laws...
anigbrowl 15y ago
Budgetary triage and procedural gridlock appear to have gone from a chronic to an acute problem. Do you think this has lead to a culture of reactivity instead of a results-based one? I'm thinking of things like sentencing economics, indifference curves and suchlike. Same name at gmail, if you'd prefer.
smutticus 15y ago
In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges, courts, and police officers. Either that or fewer laws.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Is this supposed to be a revelation? Of course doing it correctly is more difficult. Of course serving justice is more difficult. Of course upholding the liberties of individuals takes more care and effort. The more short cuts you take with these things the easier it is for prosecutors and police officers to do their job. The purpose of the system isn't to make police officers or prosecutors jobs easy, it's to uphold the law in service to society.

illumen 15y ago

Or, you could aim for less prosecutions of crimes that don't matter, and could aim for fixing social problems that cause people to commit crimes. For example, work towards reducing homelessness. Towards harm minimization policies for drug users. For example, do not allow media companies or other corporate companies to abuse criminal courts to collect civil debts. Work on fixing those problems, and then there will be less waste of the courts time.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Not to be a smartass, but isn't that what public defenders do? Remember, politicians pass budgets, make policy, and are ultimately the authors of laws. Prosecutors can advocate for the sort of policies you describe up to a point (our AG in California inclines this way, and her Republican opponent at the last election had a variety of reformist ideas too). But it's specialized work. If the DoJ assigns an attorney to prosecute cybercrime, there's not much s/he can do about the the drug war or reforming the copyright system. At the higher levels, prosecution is more of a political position - a district attorney, attorney general, or a US attorney does have a fair amount of flexibility and influence over policy. But there are relatively few of those jobs, and if you don't have one you don't have a great deal of freedom as a junior prosecutor to go off in a different direction. Even high level prosecutors are subject to a great deal of political pressure from legislators. The other thing to bear in mind is the cost. The private-sector legal industry can pay very well indeed. Wages in the public sector are pretty dismal by comparison. Federal judges are paid less (~$145k) than first-year associates at a big law firm (~$160k). The Chief Justice of the United States is paid about $220k. It's a terrible deal, and all the underlying budgets are badly underfunded as well. Not just pay; last time I looked the DoJ's 2012 budget for electronic discovery (document management systems) was only $20 million. Corporations often spend more on a single case. Most of the DoJ budget goes to law enforcement and prisons; attorneys get 6-7% and the court system gets about 3%. DoJ gets about $30 billion in total; to put that in context, DHS gets closer to $60 billion. In many ways, we get what we pay for.

joe_the_user 15y ago

As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for hours to pay for traffic tickets. So you're saying the justice system needs to take shortcuts with people's civil liberties because it is too disorganized/broken to do things the right way? Yeah, that pretty much like the way the government is thinking. If there is lots of really important spying that the police really need to do on ordinary citizens, I suggest they lobby for the repeal of a number of drug laws. That would save them a lot of spying too.

jnhnum1 15y ago

Rights against unreasonable search cannot be waived just because it's inconvenient for you to get a warrant.

ericHosick 15y ago

Perhaps there are too many laws...

anigbrowl 15y ago

Budgetary triage and procedural gridlock appear to have gone from a chronic to an acute problem. Do you think this has lead to a culture of reactivity instead of a results-based one? I'm thinking of things like sentencing economics, indifference curves and suchlike. Same name at gmail, if you'd prefer.

smutticus 15y ago

In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges, courts, and police officers. Either that or fewer laws.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Is this supposed to be a revelation? Of course doing it correctly is more difficult. Of course serving justice is more difficult. Of course upholding the liberties of individuals takes more care and effort. The more short cuts you take with these things the easier it is for prosecutors and police officers to do their job. The purpose of the system isn't to make police officers or prosecutors jobs easy, it's to uphold the law in service to society.