4 ms·

My uncle used to be a federal prosecutor. Now he defends clients for a private law firm. He was describing a case to me that involved the government suing his

My uncle used to be a federal prosecutor. Now he defends clients for a private law firm. He was describing a case to me that involved the government suing his client over something. It turns out that the prosecutor's case was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant laws. Millions of dollars and potential jail time were on the line. I asked my uncle "do these prosecutors, their office, or anybody face potential retribution for nearly ruining this guy's life and likely ruining his business?" My uncle replied "no, there is nothing that can be done to them." I asked "so if some asshole in a prosecutor's office doesn't like you or is a dumbass, he can just ruin your life and that's it?" "Yes," he said. I can understand why this is. If law enforcement, generally, were subject to the same liability as regular citizens, that is all anybody would seek to do when the law looks at them. The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions. I don't know what can be done, and there is likely no general solution, but thinking about this makes me realize that "freedom" is not exactly a thing. At least in this case the guy could hire a good lawyer and avoid the worst.

godelski 2y ago
> no, there is nothing that can be done to them. I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. Though we could have a more complicated and efficient route and let it depend on the severity/reasonability of the mistake and frequency of them. But as far as I can tell, this is generally what is actually done. > The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, Though this is still kinda true but for other reasons. Quotas are a common contributor here. Even if there is no official quota in a LEO team there is often an implicit one. Where things like number of arrests, citations, and so on. Because we can't be completely subjective, right? Obviously the reliance on metrics (spectrum of: <are truth> - <are guides> - <lol, who cares>) varies from place to place but it would be naive to assume that these things don't play a role. I guess I'm saying the world is complicated and you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't, so take Blackstone's ratio into account and maybe we should let things be a bit fuzzy because defuzzing usually only ends up making them even more fuzzy.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. OOP listed a possibility in his comment: > if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well The whole justice system is currently incentivized to be as callous and cruel as possible, because there are no consequences or accountability when they're wrong. Down the individual police officers who can do anything they want because they enjoy qualified immunity. The entire system from the beat cop all the way up to prosecutors and judges are in dire need of accountability for their misconduct.
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    A huge problem with this is that any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime, which people apparently hate. The justice system is cruel because people demand cruelty out of the justice system.
    - godelski 2y ago
      > any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime I'd like to point out that the proposition here can both be framed as draconian and too soft depending on the context/frame of reference one is evaluating it under. Really, the difficulty of justice reform is that people are unwilling to implement policy that has foreseeable and harmful consequences. Because they see that as (and others will interpret it as) equivalent to intentionally seeking to harm the unfortunate group. But this is the wrong way to do this. It has to be about reducing harm/crime/whatever word you want to use. I'll give an example. Let's say you invent a drug that cures lung cancer in 100% of cases but there's a 20% chance of those that are treated will develop breast cancer. Without a doubt this is something we should do. Breast cancer has one of the highest rates of survival while lung cancer has a very low rate. But you could make an argument that you are knowingly giving patients cancer, and this would be accurate (and imagine more realistic case where the rates are not evenly distributed across demographics). You did after all design a drug that gives people cancer. I think we can all imagine such a drug being pulled because people misunderstand the consequences. And certainly real world situations are nowhere near the simplicity of this hypothetical.
feoren 2y ago
> leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions Another way to put this is a strong "err on the side of letting the guilty walk free over putting the innocent in jail", which is a very intentional foundational principle of our justice system.
- alexnewman 2y ago
  Only criminal. Civil …
  - p_l 2y ago
    Prosecutors AFAIK only exist for criminal law
csa 2y ago
> The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions. I think this describes the current state of affairs, although it might become more extreme if liability increases.
Xen9 2y ago
I do not live in the US, but I believe that parity between US annual national prosecutorial funding and annual national public defense funding could alleviate the problem.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Turn the nation into a conglomerate of lawyers instead of defense contractors. Man does that sound fucking god damn awful. No thank you.
  - sincarne 2y ago
    You misunderstand. The previous comment was about public defenders, not defence contractors.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Oh I understood. You must not understand. Public defenders are lawyers.
      - Xen9 2y ago
        The disparity is not huge. It'd not cause a huge structural change, and the decreased jail time could cover part of expenses.
theGnuMe 2y ago
Aren't there laws against malicious prosecution? Also a prosecutor could face disbarment and then political repercussions which is what happened in Arizona to Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas. So it takes a lot but the system does self-regulate.

godelski 2y ago

> no, there is nothing that can be done to them. I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. Though we could have a more complicated and efficient route and let it depend on the severity/reasonability of the mistake and frequency of them. But as far as I can tell, this is generally what is actually done. > The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, Though this is still kinda true but for other reasons. Quotas are a common contributor here. Even if there is no official quota in a LEO team there is often an implicit one. Where things like number of arrests, citations, and so on. Because we can't be completely subjective, right? Obviously the reliance on metrics (spectrum of: <are truth> - <are guides> - <lol, who cares>) varies from place to place but it would be naive to assume that these things don't play a role. I guess I'm saying the world is complicated and you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't, so take Blackstone's ratio into account and maybe we should let things be a bit fuzzy because defuzzing usually only ends up making them even more fuzzy.

ryandrake 2y ago
> I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. OOP listed a possibility in his comment: > if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well The whole justice system is currently incentivized to be as callous and cruel as possible, because there are no consequences or accountability when they're wrong. Down the individual police officers who can do anything they want because they enjoy qualified immunity. The entire system from the beat cop all the way up to prosecutors and judges are in dire need of accountability for their misconduct.
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  A huge problem with this is that any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime, which people apparently hate. The justice system is cruel because people demand cruelty out of the justice system.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime I'd like to point out that the proposition here can both be framed as draconian and too soft depending on the context/frame of reference one is evaluating it under. Really, the difficulty of justice reform is that people are unwilling to implement policy that has foreseeable and harmful consequences. Because they see that as (and others will interpret it as) equivalent to intentionally seeking to harm the unfortunate group. But this is the wrong way to do this. It has to be about reducing harm/crime/whatever word you want to use. I'll give an example. Let's say you invent a drug that cures lung cancer in 100% of cases but there's a 20% chance of those that are treated will develop breast cancer. Without a doubt this is something we should do. Breast cancer has one of the highest rates of survival while lung cancer has a very low rate. But you could make an argument that you are knowingly giving patients cancer, and this would be accurate (and imagine more realistic case where the rates are not evenly distributed across demographics). You did after all design a drug that gives people cancer. I think we can all imagine such a drug being pulled because people misunderstand the consequences. And certainly real world situations are nowhere near the simplicity of this hypothetical.

feoren 2y ago

> leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions Another way to put this is a strong "err on the side of letting the guilty walk free over putting the innocent in jail", which is a very intentional foundational principle of our justice system.

alexnewman 2y ago
Only criminal. Civil …
- p_l 2y ago
  Prosecutors AFAIK only exist for criminal law

csa 2y ago

> The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions. I think this describes the current state of affairs, although it might become more extreme if liability increases.

Xen9 2y ago

I do not live in the US, but I believe that parity between US annual national prosecutorial funding and annual national public defense funding could alleviate the problem.

dgfitz 2y ago
Turn the nation into a conglomerate of lawyers instead of defense contractors. Man does that sound fucking god damn awful. No thank you.
- sincarne 2y ago
  You misunderstand. The previous comment was about public defenders, not defence contractors.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Oh I understood. You must not understand. Public defenders are lawyers.
    - Xen9 2y ago
      The disparity is not huge. It'd not cause a huge structural change, and the decreased jail time could cover part of expenses.

theGnuMe 2y ago

Aren't there laws against malicious prosecution? Also a prosecutor could face disbarment and then political repercussions which is what happened in Arizona to Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas. So it takes a lot but the system does self-regulate.