3 ms·
I'd be worried that prosecutors would go after cases that serve their own purpose and that those wouldn't be the cases most deserving of prosecution. For exampl
by standardUser 6y ago
I'd be worried that prosecutors would go after cases that serve their own purpose and that those wouldn't be the cases most deserving of prosecution. For example, I would want every violent and sexual offense to be prosecuted before even a single drug case is considered. But would a prosecutor give up a a mid-level drug dealer to go after a sexual assault case or a mugging?
- djoldman 6y agoIf a prosecutor can't prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we don't want them charging a crime regardless of what the crime is.
- giantg2 6y agoIdeally there shouldn't be any dropped cases. But of course that requires adequate funding. You know, maybe depending money on expanding the number of courts/judges instead of marble floors and hardwood paneling. And we need to do away with most law enforcement discretion (this includes DAs). Enforcement is extremely uneven. If the law using going to be enforced in many situations, then why enforce it at all? This brings up another point. Is this a justice system? How can it be when the cost to defend one's self in court (with or without a lawyer) is more expensive than the fine. You can be punished more defending yourself as an innocent person than as a guilty one who pleads guilty.
- clairity 6y agoi'd be down for expanding courts and enforcing (criminal) laws evenly and justly if we combined that with reviewing and aggressively purging unnecessary and unjust laws first. i'd conjecture we'd lose basically nothing in terms of justice and crime if we did that.
- giantg2 6y agoExactly. There seem to be a lot of non value added laws that are selectively enforced.