3 ms·
I 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 prosec
by ncallaway 6y ago
I 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.