3 ms·

No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. The entire point is that I don't trust one person

by Hasu 2y ago

No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. The entire point is that I don't trust one person, or a small group of people, to pick someone who is "unbiased". I don't trust the electorate as a whole either, but I trust them more than elected officials. Only three states in the US have appointed, rather than elected, district attorneys. The United States Attorney General is an appointed position, and we've seen in recent administrations how it can be corrupted quite easily.

seadan83 2y ago
> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. Which is why (personnally) I don't want you, or any electorate choosing prosecutors. If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor? I agree with respect to appointments being not good. In my view those are proxies for an election. I personally trust neither electorate nor elected officials.
- Hasu 2y ago
  > In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. In a democracy, you can argue with and convince your fellow citizens to change the law and how it is enforced. If a majority doesn't agree, you won't get your way. This is not a good system, but it is better than any other system. If there were some other alternative that guaranteed that everyone always gets a completely unbiased prosecutor - great, I'm all for it! That system doesn't exist, though.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Would you answer: > If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor? You said previously at least by voting you had a say in the bias. Is your answer to the above a genuine "yes" because you feel there was opportunity to lobby other citizens? I don't agree that there is necessarily even that possibility. Thus my position is that elected or appointed by an elected official are equally broken.

by Hasu 2y ago

seadan83 2y ago

> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. Which is why (personnally) I don't want you, or any electorate choosing prosecutors. If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor? I agree with respect to appointments being not good. In my view those are proxies for an election. I personally trust neither electorate nor elected officials.

Hasu 2y ago
> In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. In a democracy, you can argue with and convince your fellow citizens to change the law and how it is enforced. If a majority doesn't agree, you won't get your way. This is not a good system, but it is better than any other system. If there were some other alternative that guaranteed that everyone always gets a completely unbiased prosecutor - great, I'm all for it! That system doesn't exist, though.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Would you answer: > If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor? You said previously at least by voting you had a say in the bias. Is your answer to the above a genuine "yes" because you feel there was opportunity to lobby other citizens? I don't agree that there is necessarily even that possibility. Thus my position is that elected or appointed by an elected official are equally broken.