4 ms·
It's not 1920 anymore. The bulk of the FBI's case load could be handled by a much smaller agency who's only job is to facilitate and coordinate state law enfor
by throwaway0a5e 4y ago
It's not 1920 anymore. The bulk of the FBI's case load could be handled by a much smaller agency who's only job is to facilitate and coordinate state law enforcement.
All the "states misbehaving" issues that some people think they need the FBI for are traditionally handled by the US Marshall service.
- Bud 4y ago
- anticensor 4y agoFBI is for federal law enforcement. Should federal law enforcement really left to state agencies?
- jvanderbot 4y agoI think you're speaking from an agenda-driven opinion, with very little experience or data.
- soared 4y agoWait which one is it: * It’s not the 1920s, there aren’t large criminal organizations anymore * The FBI in 2022 is a large criminal organization
- BizarroLand 4y agoComing up at number 8 on our list: "The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”" https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...
- goodpoint 4y ago"It’s not the 1920s, there aren’t large criminal organizations anymore except the FBI" Happy now?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> bulk of the FBI's case load could be handled by a much smaller agency What smaller agency would take on a corrupt state Senator in Missouri?
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoIn a functional state the state police does that job. In a solidly one-party state only the minority party gets prosecuted because the majority party will still win even if they look like corrupt buffoons. <insert Chicago joke here>
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- danans 4y ago> In a functional state the state police does that job. If the specific crimes are Federal as it was in this case, then the Federal law enforcement agency must get involved. Otherwise your argument reduces to "there should be no Federal laws against wire fraud, honest services fraud, and money laundering"
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoStates enforce federal statutes all the time. They just frequently turn the prosecution over to the feds. There's no reason you local DA can't do that.
- danans 4y ago> States enforce federal statutes all the time. Only when the state statute coincidentally matches the federal statute, for crimes like bank robbery that are defined at the state and federal level. If the state doesn't have a law against the crime (i.e. South Carolina has no laws regarding hate crimes [1], but the federal government does [2]), then federal prosecutors are responsible for prosecuting those. One can't escape prosecution for a federal crime because there is no state law against it. Prosecuting federal crimes at a local level is exactly why the regional US attorneys offices exist. In the case in from the article, the crimes committed by the state Senator (wire fraud, money laundering, etc) are federal by definition, so a local DA isn't going to prosecute them anyways. 1. https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-columbia-south-carolina-charleston-legislature-6e810531bc05cd1b572f8fa9c6f67fc1 https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-columbia-south-caro... 2. https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws