8 ms·

Am I to understand that a state governer has the power to instruct some lacky-lawyer to charge someone with a crime, and to prosecute them for that crime? In th

Am I to understand that a state governer has the power to instruct some lacky-lawyer to charge someone with a crime, and to prosecute them for that crime? In the land of the free, this is not an independent process?

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
You are surprised? We already know that a prosecutor will try for higher sentences near an election and... well, they are elected. It isn't hard to imagine that an elected official works with other elected officials, especially if they want to do other things in government.
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    As European, I find it insane that I could elect the prosecutor or even the police. And in some ways that politicians would have any word on this apart from deciding the funding and laws...
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      I don't disagree with your point but how a prosecutor must be selected then? If someone is not chosen by a public and popular vote, it must be chosen differently. Any mechanism of choice will have an inherent bias. For example, you could decide that a prosecutor is the best at knowing the law, so let's have a law exam where the one with the best score is named prosecutor. However, being a good prosecutor can't always be reduced to a technical know-how. And those good at laws might be those who were able to pay to go to the best universities, buy the textbooks, be allowed to study for years without working, etc. So you also have a bias on wealthy families. I don't think that the problem of allocation of power in our modern societies is a solved problem...
      - simonh 5y ago
        Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was accused of was politicised. I actually know someone in the US who’s life was destroyed by that system, he spent a year in prison and it took years more to clear his name. Politicisation is endemic to the US justice and policing system, it’s an absolute disgrace. I agree no system is perfect, we have miscarriages of justice here in the UK too, but perfection is not the enemy of the good and your system is below mediocre. You can do, and deserve, a lot better.
        Ekaros 5y ago
        Specially when the public side is underfunded and defending yourself is insanely expensive. Not that law is cheap anywhere, but from recent cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and officer Potter it seems just stupid and broken.
        ziml77 5y ago
        After both looking into the details myself and watching LegalEagle's analysis of the case, I'm not convinced that there was anything wrong with the Rittenhouse trial. Rittenhouse was stupid for driving into the city in the first place, but each of the times he fired his gun seemed perfectly reasonable. And I had initially thought that he was looking for an excuse to shoot black people, but then found out that all 3 people he shot were white.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
        What was wrong with the Potter case?
        Ekaros 5y ago
        That that sort of case would take weeks in court room and even longer outside and cost tens or hundreds of thousands to pay for defence.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    God save the queen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528
    - jimnotgym 5y ago
      ...from malicious US interference in the justice system?
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Craig Murray only just got out of prison for court reporting while not part of the proper crowd, so is it really that different over there?
    - jimnotgym 5y ago
      Didn't Craig Murray go to prison for contempt of court? As Wikipedia recalls it, a judge in a sexual harassment and attempted rape trial issued an order to keep the accusers anonymous. Mr Murray was found to have broken that order. Unless you want to elaborate on the specifics, I think your comment is without merit
      - Talanes 5y ago
        "Jigsaw identification" is a nebulous broad claim that could have been applied equally to any reporting on the trial, but was only applied to one independent journalist who has been critical of the state.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I don't know why you're surprised. The courts have shown time and again that they are part of the establishment (that includes the civil service and government), and will act in accordance with government wishes most of the time. "Yes, Minister" was documentary not fiction (also, since we seem to be remaking/rebooting everything good, can we have an updated version of this, please?)
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      They did remake Yes Minister. It was Not Very Good. This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of thing that Humphrey would stop Hacker doing, if Hacker had the ability, which he didn’t. The only times Humphrey lets Hacker indulge in overreach are to put him in a situation that Humphrey can then save him from.
      - marcus_holmes 5y ago
        > They did remake Yes Minister. It was Not Very Good. Thanks, I must have missed it. I'll check it out (even if it's crap). I agree with your take on it, I was more indicating that the way Things Are Supposed To Work is almost not How They Actually Work, and usually that's How The Old Boy Network Want Them To Work.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    Imagine the following situation: Someone anonymous on Twitter threatens to kill you. You go to the front desk of your local police and they say "You have our sympathies, but we have limited resources, and we don't know whether it's really a serious matter or not, or even if the perpetrator is within our jurisdiction." You threaten on Twitter to kill your MP. They go to the head of the local police force who decides it _is_ a serious matter, looks into it and finds you _are_ in their jurisdiction, and some police officers come knocking at your door. Is this the rule of law operating as intended, reflecting the reality that MPs have been murdered before, and in a world unfortunately constrained by finite policing budgets? Or is it a double-standard, where a wealth of usually-unenforced laws allow the powerful to oppress their opponents?
- rsynnott 5y ago
  In many countries, the executive trying to direct the public prosecutor would be a scandal that would end multiple careers. Actually, I would think that it would be in the US, too, if done on a _federal_ level.
xwolfi 5y ago
Land of the free... to shut up and pay their credit card debts and student loans.
Ekaros 5y ago
It is all politics. Prosecutors are sometimes elected with political ambitions. And on higher level in same corrupt parties are those on state level... Thus pressure to do things...
_dain_ 5y ago
The state Attorney General is part of the executive branch and takes orders from the governor. This is the case in most states and the equivalent is true at the federal level. People seem to think it is an "apolitical" post but that just isn't true.
tshaddox 5y ago
In an authoritarian state, yes, of course this is possible.
ensignavenger 5y ago
No, the state governor does not have the power to order a county prosecutor to prosecute. He can't even order the attorney general to prosecute. Might be able to put political pressure on them to do so, though. On the other hand, the President of the United States does have some constitutional power over the Department of Justice, and appoints the US Attorney General (With confirmation by the Senate), and can fire the AG, so at the Federal level, there is a direct line of such power.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

You are surprised? We already know that a prosecutor will try for higher sentences near an election and... well, they are elected. It isn't hard to imagine that an elected official works with other elected officials, especially if they want to do other things in government.

jimnotgym 5y ago
I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes
- Ekaros 5y ago
  As European, I find it insane that I could elect the prosecutor or even the police. And in some ways that politicians would have any word on this apart from deciding the funding and laws...
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    I don't disagree with your point but how a prosecutor must be selected then? If someone is not chosen by a public and popular vote, it must be chosen differently. Any mechanism of choice will have an inherent bias. For example, you could decide that a prosecutor is the best at knowing the law, so let's have a law exam where the one with the best score is named prosecutor. However, being a good prosecutor can't always be reduced to a technical know-how. And those good at laws might be those who were able to pay to go to the best universities, buy the textbooks, be allowed to study for years without working, etc. So you also have a bias on wealthy families. I don't think that the problem of allocation of power in our modern societies is a solved problem...
    - simonh 5y ago
      Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was accused of was politicised. I actually know someone in the US who’s life was destroyed by that system, he spent a year in prison and it took years more to clear his name. Politicisation is endemic to the US justice and policing system, it’s an absolute disgrace. I agree no system is perfect, we have miscarriages of justice here in the UK too, but perfection is not the enemy of the good and your system is below mediocre. You can do, and deserve, a lot better.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Specially when the public side is underfunded and defending yourself is insanely expensive. Not that law is cheap anywhere, but from recent cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and officer Potter it seems just stupid and broken.
        ziml77 5y ago
        After both looking into the details myself and watching LegalEagle's analysis of the case, I'm not convinced that there was anything wrong with the Rittenhouse trial. Rittenhouse was stupid for driving into the city in the first place, but each of the times he fired his gun seemed perfectly reasonable. And I had initially thought that he was looking for an excuse to shoot black people, but then found out that all 3 people he shot were white.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
        What was wrong with the Potter case?
        Ekaros 5y ago
        That that sort of case would take weeks in court room and even longer outside and cost tens or hundreds of thousands to pay for defence.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  God save the queen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528
  - jimnotgym 5y ago
    ...from malicious US interference in the justice system?
- Talanes 5y ago
  Craig Murray only just got out of prison for court reporting while not part of the proper crowd, so is it really that different over there?
  - jimnotgym 5y ago
    Didn't Craig Murray go to prison for contempt of court? As Wikipedia recalls it, a judge in a sexual harassment and attempted rape trial issued an order to keep the accusers anonymous. Mr Murray was found to have broken that order. Unless you want to elaborate on the specifics, I think your comment is without merit
    - Talanes 5y ago
      "Jigsaw identification" is a nebulous broad claim that could have been applied equally to any reporting on the trial, but was only applied to one independent journalist who has been critical of the state.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I don't know why you're surprised. The courts have shown time and again that they are part of the establishment (that includes the civil service and government), and will act in accordance with government wishes most of the time. "Yes, Minister" was documentary not fiction (also, since we seem to be remaking/rebooting everything good, can we have an updated version of this, please?)
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    They did remake Yes Minister. It was Not Very Good. This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of thing that Humphrey would stop Hacker doing, if Hacker had the ability, which he didn’t. The only times Humphrey lets Hacker indulge in overreach are to put him in a situation that Humphrey can then save him from.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      > They did remake Yes Minister. It was Not Very Good. Thanks, I must have missed it. I'll check it out (even if it's crap). I agree with your take on it, I was more indicating that the way Things Are Supposed To Work is almost not How They Actually Work, and usually that's How The Old Boy Network Want Them To Work.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Imagine the following situation: Someone anonymous on Twitter threatens to kill you. You go to the front desk of your local police and they say "You have our sympathies, but we have limited resources, and we don't know whether it's really a serious matter or not, or even if the perpetrator is within our jurisdiction." You threaten on Twitter to kill your MP. They go to the head of the local police force who decides it _is_ a serious matter, looks into it and finds you _are_ in their jurisdiction, and some police officers come knocking at your door. Is this the rule of law operating as intended, reflecting the reality that MPs have been murdered before, and in a world unfortunately constrained by finite policing budgets? Or is it a double-standard, where a wealth of usually-unenforced laws allow the powerful to oppress their opponents?
rsynnott 5y ago
In many countries, the executive trying to direct the public prosecutor would be a scandal that would end multiple careers. Actually, I would think that it would be in the US, too, if done on a _federal_ level.

xwolfi 5y ago

Land of the free... to shut up and pay their credit card debts and student loans.

Ekaros 5y ago

It is all politics. Prosecutors are sometimes elected with political ambitions. And on higher level in same corrupt parties are those on state level... Thus pressure to do things...

_dain_ 5y ago

The state Attorney General is part of the executive branch and takes orders from the governor. This is the case in most states and the equivalent is true at the federal level. People seem to think it is an "apolitical" post but that just isn't true.

tshaddox 5y ago

In an authoritarian state, yes, of course this is possible.

ensignavenger 5y ago

No, the state governor does not have the power to order a county prosecutor to prosecute. He can't even order the attorney general to prosecute. Might be able to put political pressure on them to do so, though. On the other hand, the President of the United States does have some constitutional power over the Department of Justice, and appoints the US Attorney General (With confirmation by the Senate), and can fire the AG, so at the Federal level, there is a direct line of such power.