3 ms·

To be perfectly honest I see no reason why all the prosecutorial powers vested exclusively on the state should be exclusive to the state. There should be nothi

by djbebs 5y ago

To be perfectly honest I see no reason why all the prosecutorial powers vested exclusively on the state should be exclusive to the state. There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job.

zepto 5y ago
That would result just in sovereign citizens doing an unlimited amount of paper terrorism.
- djbebs 5y ago
  As opposed to the state? Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it going towards the winner.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > with it going towards the winner. The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved.
    - jdasdf 5y ago
      Hence the: >There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. >This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. >The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job. If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own. Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the investigation too.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer would rely on the police investigating the officer?
    - anchpop 5y ago
      they already have an incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the incentive slightly greater but you shouldn’t rely on cops to investigate their buddies anyway
  - zepto 5y ago
    > As opposed to the state? Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to sovereign citizens? Also, how about investigations that never go to a prosecution? It’s pretty simple to harass someone that way.
    - djbebs 5y ago
      Yes? I dont see why the state should be considered special. Ultimately it is supposed to work for the people, is it not? It's powers are delegated to it by the people. I dont see "only the state should have the right to harass people" as a legitimate argument. If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.
      - zepto 5y ago
        The sovereign citizens aren’t elected. > If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed. Making a broken system worse does increase the need to fix it, but it doesn’t mean it gets fixed, it just means we have a worse need.
        djbebs 5y ago
        What does being elected or not have to do with it? Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, but somehow I doubt you'll think they should have a right to harass you. And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created. The worst thing that can happen is for an injustice to be prolonged just because it only affects a select group of people that those in power dislike.
        zepto 5y ago
        > Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, No they don’t. > And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created. When has that ever worked?
elliekelly 5y ago
Some states (like Pennsylvania[1], for example) do have a process for "private criminal complaints". It's not without major drawbacks. The process can be (and has been) abused by people who simply want to make life difficult for others. Texas also recently took the concept you've described but implemented the inverse with SB-8[2] which allows citizens to do precisely what the government itself is legally barred from doing. [1]https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s506.html https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secur... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act

by djbebs 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

That would result just in sovereign citizens doing an unlimited amount of paper terrorism.

djbebs 5y ago
As opposed to the state? Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it going towards the winner.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > with it going towards the winner. The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved.
  - jdasdf 5y ago
    Hence the: >There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing. >This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on. >The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job. If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own. Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the investigation too.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer would rely on the police investigating the officer?
  - anchpop 5y ago
    they already have an incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the incentive slightly greater but you shouldn’t rely on cops to investigate their buddies anyway
- zepto 5y ago
  > As opposed to the state? Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to sovereign citizens? Also, how about investigations that never go to a prosecution? It’s pretty simple to harass someone that way.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Yes? I dont see why the state should be considered special. Ultimately it is supposed to work for the people, is it not? It's powers are delegated to it by the people. I dont see "only the state should have the right to harass people" as a legitimate argument. If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.
    - zepto 5y ago
      The sovereign citizens aren’t elected. > If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed. Making a broken system worse does increase the need to fix it, but it doesn’t mean it gets fixed, it just means we have a worse need.
      - djbebs 5y ago
        What does being elected or not have to do with it? Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, but somehow I doubt you'll think they should have a right to harass you. And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created. The worst thing that can happen is for an injustice to be prolonged just because it only affects a select group of people that those in power dislike.
        zepto 5y ago
        > Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, No they don’t. > And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created. When has that ever worked?

elliekelly 5y ago

Some states (like Pennsylvania[1], for example) do have a process for "private criminal complaints". It's not without major drawbacks. The process can be (and has been) abused by people who simply want to make life difficult for others. Texas also recently took the concept you've described but implemented the inverse with SB-8[2] which allows citizens to do precisely what the government itself is legally barred from doing. [1]https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s506.html https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secur... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act