3 ms·

> If it is true that MIT initiated this and they, along with JSTOR, could have made tons of noise to pull back the DOJ, they really need to engage in deep intro

by rohern 14y ago

> If it is true that MIT initiated this and they, along with JSTOR, could have made tons of noise to pull back the DOJ, they really need to engage in deep introspection in order to make sure this never happens again. A person suspected of breaking federal law will be prosecuted by the Federal government at its own discretion. The alleged victims get no say in that. Their forgiveness may be taken into account by a judge at sentencing, but it has nothing at all to do with the pursuit of prosecution. In fact, a federal prosecutor would be behaving in an impeachable way to fail to pursue a violation of federal law.

btilly 14y ago
In fact, a federal prosecutor would be behaving in an impeachable way to fail to pursue a violation of federal law. Citation needed. Particularly considering the fact that prosecutors do not have the resources to pursue all violations of federal law. Doubly so given that multiple states currently have extremely uneven enforcement of federal law around the sale of marijuana. Selective enforcement is a reality.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Federal prosecutors swear an oath to uphold all federal laws, and are generally bound by that oath unless an executive order by the president directs them not to enforce a particular law (in which case the president, not the prosecutor, would be subject to potential impeachment). State and local prosecutors do not have the resources to pursue violations of federal law; they also do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Federal prosecutors have several billions in resources to pursue violations of federal law, and are effectively not capped in their pursuit of "justice". Doubly so given that multiple states currently have extremely uneven enforcement of federal law around the sale of marijuana. Federal prosecution of drug laws regarding marijuana are fairly even. The difference is that states which have legalized marijuana make it far easier for federal prosecutors to find defendants than states where it is illegal (because defendants in those states do not distribute their marijuana in the public eye).
  - btilly 14y ago
    You said the same thing at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049530 and were corrected there. So I'll just point you back to that.
Zak 14y ago
A prosecutor's duty and role is to seek justice[0]. Justice isn't always black and white, but it certainly isn't applying the toughest charges that could possibly be made to stick nor seeking the highest possible penalty in every case. The prosecutor should attempt to determine what a just outcome to a case would be, then seek to achieve it. Being aware of a situation where it is probable to win a conviction under the letter of the law in no way obligates a prosecutor to seek that conviction. [0] http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blkold.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_sec...

by rohern 14y ago

btilly 14y ago

In fact, a federal prosecutor would be behaving in an impeachable way to fail to pursue a violation of federal law. Citation needed. Particularly considering the fact that prosecutors do not have the resources to pursue all violations of federal law. Doubly so given that multiple states currently have extremely uneven enforcement of federal law around the sale of marijuana. Selective enforcement is a reality.

rprasad 14y ago
Federal prosecutors swear an oath to uphold all federal laws, and are generally bound by that oath unless an executive order by the president directs them not to enforce a particular law (in which case the president, not the prosecutor, would be subject to potential impeachment). State and local prosecutors do not have the resources to pursue violations of federal law; they also do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Federal prosecutors have several billions in resources to pursue violations of federal law, and are effectively not capped in their pursuit of "justice". Doubly so given that multiple states currently have extremely uneven enforcement of federal law around the sale of marijuana. Federal prosecution of drug laws regarding marijuana are fairly even. The difference is that states which have legalized marijuana make it far easier for federal prosecutors to find defendants than states where it is illegal (because defendants in those states do not distribute their marijuana in the public eye).
- btilly 14y ago
  You said the same thing at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049530 and were corrected there. So I'll just point you back to that.

Zak 14y ago

A prosecutor's duty and role is to seek justice[0]. Justice isn't always black and white, but it certainly isn't applying the toughest charges that could possibly be made to stick nor seeking the highest possible penalty in every case. The prosecutor should attempt to determine what a just outcome to a case would be, then seek to achieve it. Being aware of a situation where it is probable to win a conviction under the letter of the law in no way obligates a prosecutor to seek that conviction. [0] http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blkold.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_sec...