3 ms·

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 apoli

by 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.

by rprasad 14y ago

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.