6 ms·
Prosecutors can choose which law to enforce or not. This doesn't sound good to me at all.
by temp8964 6y ago
Prosecutors can choose which law to enforce or not. This doesn't sound good to me at all.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoSelective enforcement really is a great evil. The law most be applied evenly or it should not be applied at all. “To my friends: anything, to my enemies: the law”
- lvs 6y agoWhat you're describing is far more totalitarian than I think you understand. Corrupt selective enforcement is an evil, but prosecutorial discretion is a necessary component of a free society.
- Ericson2314 6y agoI mean if trials really were speedy and the justice system not heavily backlogged would it be? Jury nullification is supposed to fill that need.
- lvs 6y agoSo the state is obligated to prosecute all crimes with extenuating circumstances all the way through trial in your dystopia? No thanks.
- strken 6y agoIf discretion is applied to every single crime, it's got nothing to do with extenuating circumstances and everything to do with bad laws that shouldn't exist. For the state to make a law and then refuse to prosecute it is dangerous, because it could at any time turn around and start.
- koheripbal 6y agoIF bandwidth was not an issue, then lots of things would be possible. ...but that is not a reasonably possible IF. We don't have infinite resources to hold jury trials for every time someone walks outside a crosswalk.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> I mean if trials really were speedy and the justice system not heavily backlogged would it be? Yes. > Jury nullification is supposed to fill that need. No, its not. Prosecutorial discretion, jury nullifcation, and executive pardon/clemency are all part of what is supposed to fill overlapping needs.
- ffggvv 6y agothose are just double speak for the same thing. laws must be enforced. it’s up to juries and judges to determine guilt, not some highly partisan DA
- selfishgene 6y agoIn the United States that's why we have the 14th Amendment.
- ncallaway 6y agoI think this is a totally reasonable concern, but I do want to present another side of it: There is far more crime that exists than we have resources to prosecute. So, if you're a prosecutor every decision to prosecute Crime A, is also an explicit decision not to prosecute Crime B-Z due to the limited resources. Which means every prosecutor ever is always deciding which law to enforce and which law not to through the brutal economic realities of opportunity costs. So, saying: "We're going to change the relative priority of Crime A to Crime B in how we allocate resources" isn't that abnormal of a concept.
- temp8964 6y agoEven there is a priority, I don't think it should be up to the individual prosecutor to make the decision.
- edanm 6y agoWho/what should make the decision then?
- axiosgunnar 6y agoObviously the parliament (state legistlature in the US)! This is literally what the separation of powers is all about
- edanm 6y agoGiven that there are more laws than can be feasibly enforced, the police and the prosecutors effectively have to make a decision. If you're saying you'd like fewer laws and/or more money to those other institutions - then that makes sense.
- cgriswald 6y agoThis discretion is effectively granted to the executive since the governor and/or president could simply pardon everyone convicted of the crime after conviction. If the law might be unconstitutional there is also some discretion there, but it’s murkier. The legislative branch can write laws in ways that compel the executive to better execute those laws but there will always be practical limits (e.g. “We are prioritizing murder investigations so we can’t set up vice units without more funding.”). So if all laws are prioritized that way none are.