3 ms·

The issue here seems to be that attorney office can decide to not apply laws arbitrarily. Part of checks and balances I guess?

• tiahura 6y ago
  Prosecutorial discretion is a different than checks and balances. C&B describes the interrelations between branches of government in furtherance of good governance. Only a single branch of government is involved here - the executive. There are at least two related principles behind prosecutorial discretion. One is that the system should be biased against prosecuting people because putting people in jail shouldn't be our goal. Another principle is that law enforcement, from the local cop all the way to the US Attorney General, has to have some discretion in how they do their job - e.g. do we really want cops pulling everyone over who is 1 mph over the speed limit?
• alistairSH 6y ago
  But they did apply the law. Part of the settlement was an admission of guilt (along with massive fines and turning snitch on at least one business associate). It sounds like everybody wins. IRS gets revenue in the form of fines that exceeded the avoided taxes. AG's office gets a snitch, which should enable them to fry bigger fish. The criminal pays a large fine, gets his name in the paper for bad reasons, but avoids jail. Really, what does jail get us in this case? It's a non-violent crime.
  • liaukovv 6y ago
    Prosecution would be applying the law. They didn't prosecute.
    • alistairSH 6y ago
      The guy admitted he was guilty and agreed to a punishment - what value does prosecution serve at this point?
      • liaukovv 6y ago
        Applying the law equally to all has value of it's own.