4 ms·

> "We were just following orders" and "We were just doing our jobs" and "We were doing what the law told us to do" aren't the indefensible moral positions you s

by davidp 14y ago

> "We were just following orders" and "We were just doing our jobs" and "We were doing what the law told us to do" aren't the indefensible moral positions you seem to think they are. Careful; that's a double-edged sword. Would you prefer that individual prosecutors have the authority to ignore the law? That didn't work too well in the pre-civil-rights South, when lynchings went unprosecuted. It's far better to have a government of laws and not a government of men; then you can assign responsibility where it belongs, with the people who write the laws.

drzaiusapelord 14y ago
>It's far better to have a government of laws and not a government of men Who do you think decided to tell JSTOR to shove it and prosecute him anyway under a federal computer crimes act? All prosecution is political and white collar crimes doubly so. Men decide to be vindictive, men decide which laws, and the men who prosecute knowing it takes millions of dollars to successful defend from a false accusation from the federal government. We don't live under laws. We live under men. There's no politically neutral AI calling the shots. Its people trying to get promotions and making names for themselves and who knows what other motivations. The selfless prosecutor exists only in movies and TV.
- rprasad 14y ago
  All prosecution is political and white collar crimes doubly so. No, all laws are political. Enforcement of the law, especiallly at the federal level, is apolitical. White collar crimes are not special; indeed, white collar crimes are by far the worst types of crimes because they strike directly at the foundation of the system itself (i.e., trust). There's no politically neutral AI calling the shots. Exactly. Letting prosecutors pick and choose which statutes they enforce would make prosecution political. This is what happened in the South for 100 years when blacks were prosecuted aggressively and white defendants were not (especially in cases with black victims). It's also the reason why prosecutors at the federal level generally do not have discretionary authority to decide what crimes they will enforce absent a presidential directive or a directive from the head of their agency.
  - drzaiusapelord 14y ago
    > Enforcement of the law, especiallly at the federal level, is apolitical. Pull the other one now.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - temphn 14y ago
    It's also the reason why prosecutors at the federal level generally do not have discretionary authority "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. This authority is exercised under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates. The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority. The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of the United States Attorney with relation to criminal matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the following: Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the United States, see USAM 9-2.010; Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010; Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020; Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030; Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial related questions; Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170; Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the supervision of the Criminal Division.
  - neltnerb 14y ago
    No, no, no. The point of an AG is to act as a first line to determine which cases are worth pursuing and which are not. They absolutely are granted and should exercise frequently the right to not prosecute! I have had several friends prosecuted for trumped up nonsense that should have been slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanors at the most. I would prefer to see an AG exercise their privilege to not prosecute in cases where, even assuming the facts in the complaint are true, it is unclear that a crime has been committed. Particularly where there is no individual who has been harmed. "Tough on Crime" is a messed up way to operate a justice system. "Fair on Crime" should be the standard we hold our officials to.
greedo 14y ago
You don't think individual prosecutors don't already ignore the law? Selective prosecution happens all the time.

by davidp 14y ago

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

>It's far better to have a government of laws and not a government of men Who do you think decided to tell JSTOR to shove it and prosecute him anyway under a federal computer crimes act? All prosecution is political and white collar crimes doubly so. Men decide to be vindictive, men decide which laws, and the men who prosecute knowing it takes millions of dollars to successful defend from a false accusation from the federal government. We don't live under laws. We live under men. There's no politically neutral AI calling the shots. Its people trying to get promotions and making names for themselves and who knows what other motivations. The selfless prosecutor exists only in movies and TV.

rprasad 14y ago
All prosecution is political and white collar crimes doubly so. No, all laws are political. Enforcement of the law, especiallly at the federal level, is apolitical. White collar crimes are not special; indeed, white collar crimes are by far the worst types of crimes because they strike directly at the foundation of the system itself (i.e., trust). There's no politically neutral AI calling the shots. Exactly. Letting prosecutors pick and choose which statutes they enforce would make prosecution political. This is what happened in the South for 100 years when blacks were prosecuted aggressively and white defendants were not (especially in cases with black victims). It's also the reason why prosecutors at the federal level generally do not have discretionary authority to decide what crimes they will enforce absent a presidential directive or a directive from the head of their agency.
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  > Enforcement of the law, especiallly at the federal level, is apolitical. Pull the other one now.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- temphn 14y ago
  It's also the reason why prosecutors at the federal level generally do not have discretionary authority "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. This authority is exercised under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates. The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority. The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of the United States Attorney with relation to criminal matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the following: Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the United States, see USAM 9-2.010; Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010; Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020; Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030; Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial related questions; Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170; Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the supervision of the Criminal Division.
- neltnerb 14y ago
  No, no, no. The point of an AG is to act as a first line to determine which cases are worth pursuing and which are not. They absolutely are granted and should exercise frequently the right to not prosecute! I have had several friends prosecuted for trumped up nonsense that should have been slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanors at the most. I would prefer to see an AG exercise their privilege to not prosecute in cases where, even assuming the facts in the complaint are true, it is unclear that a crime has been committed. Particularly where there is no individual who has been harmed. "Tough on Crime" is a messed up way to operate a justice system. "Fair on Crime" should be the standard we hold our officials to.

greedo 14y ago

You don't think individual prosecutors don't already ignore the law? Selective prosecution happens all the time.