6 ms·

The job of the prosecutor is indeed to continue the prosecution, even if the victim and the offender have resolved their issues. Think of a case of some victim

The job of the prosecutor is indeed to continue the prosecution, even if the victim and the offender have resolved their issues. Think of a case of some victim being coerced to have the charges dropped. Would you prefer the prosecution to stop or would you prefer if the crime was resolved?

chris_wot 14y ago
I'm sorry, was JSTOR coerced into asking for the charges to be dropped?
- Xylakant 14y ago
  In this case probably not, though public pressure may have been a part of it. And MITs statement was less clear on that matter. However, this is not for the prosecution to decide. The prosecution should treat each case equal. If criminal charges haven been brought forward, they must be prosecuted or dismissed solely based on evidence, not based on the victims actions. Please note that I do not think that the way the prosecution pushed the charges was right.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    If criminal charges haven been brought forward Neither JSTOR nor MIT brought forward criminal charges; that was done by the US Attorneys themselves. So saying "this is not for the prosecution to decide" is wrong--the prosecution decided to bring charges, so it's their responsibility if the charges were way out of proportion.
    - abrenzel 14y ago
      Strictly speaking this is not correct. JSTOR and MIT cannot bring criminal charges; only the US government may. They can bring civil charges on their own behalf in addition to the criminal charges, and whether the 2 parties agree to settle out of court is relevant to any civil charges brought against the defendant. This is the basis for the difference between civil and criminal law - civil law covers disputes between 2 parties and serves as a framework if the 2 parties cannot reconcile. On the other hand, criminal actions are not just about the grievances between the defendant and the victim of the crime. In principle, crimes are committed against the people themselves (hence the case naming scheme exemplified by the United States vs. X or The People of Illinois vs. X). Even if the victim isn't particularly interested in pursuing the prosecution, the prosecutor is still within his rights to try the case. Indeed, in many violent crimes such as rape, the victim is not interested in aiding the trial. While this can sometimes derail the prosecution, it need not. Pursuing the case absent the victim's full cooperation cannot ipso facto be considered prosecutorial abuse.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        Strictly speaking this is not correct. How so? Nothing you said contradicts anything that I said. Even if the victim isn't particularly interested in pursuing the prosecution, the prosecutor is still within his rights to try the case. Yes, and if the prosecutor decides to do so, he/she is responsible for that decision. That was my point.
        abrenzel 14y ago
        Yes, I contradicted your assertions that a) it is MIT and JSTOR that have primary discretion in whether a criminal case moves forward (it is the government's sole discretion) b) MIT and JSTOR are in fact responsible for bringing criminal charges (they are not - they can only bring civil charges) c) that the prosecutor is responsible for the severity of the penalty and/or the defendant's emotional response to that penalty My disagreement with your third assertion was more implicit so let me clarify a bit. First, it is not the prosecutor's job to question whether a law's penalties are in proportion to the crime it proscribes when deciding whether to bring a case. Discretion over the severity of the punishment is left to the sentencing phase of the trial if the defendant is convicted, and it is highly likely that Aaron's sentence would not have been the maximum had he been found guilty (a fact I am sure his lawyers made him aware of). Second, under what reasonable standard can a prosecutor be held personally responsible for the emotional state of the defendant? Should it be acceptable for criminal defendants to pressure prosecutors into dropping cases by threatening self-harm or suicide in the hopes that a public outcry will harm the prosecutor's career? Try to ignore for a moment that the defendant in this case has your sympathies. Would you accept that tactic from a serial killer or rapist? It may be that the law itself is unnecessary or counterproductive. I'm certainly open to the argument that at least publicly funded research ought to be open to the public. Yet it is still the law of the land. From the facts of the case, Aaron committed an obvious crime and behaved as though he knew it were a crime. The potential price of civil disobedience is that you will in fact end up punished for it. In the end, his story (like Rosa Parks and others before him) may end up bringing about the change he wants. But to say that the prosecutor abused her authority or was personally responsible for his death is an emotional response without basis and runs counter to the very idea of a criminal justice system.

chris_wot 14y ago

I'm sorry, was JSTOR coerced into asking for the charges to be dropped?

Xylakant 14y ago
In this case probably not, though public pressure may have been a part of it. And MITs statement was less clear on that matter. However, this is not for the prosecution to decide. The prosecution should treat each case equal. If criminal charges haven been brought forward, they must be prosecuted or dismissed solely based on evidence, not based on the victims actions. Please note that I do not think that the way the prosecution pushed the charges was right.
- pdonis 14y ago
  If criminal charges haven been brought forward Neither JSTOR nor MIT brought forward criminal charges; that was done by the US Attorneys themselves. So saying "this is not for the prosecution to decide" is wrong--the prosecution decided to bring charges, so it's their responsibility if the charges were way out of proportion.
  - abrenzel 14y ago
    Strictly speaking this is not correct. JSTOR and MIT cannot bring criminal charges; only the US government may. They can bring civil charges on their own behalf in addition to the criminal charges, and whether the 2 parties agree to settle out of court is relevant to any civil charges brought against the defendant. This is the basis for the difference between civil and criminal law - civil law covers disputes between 2 parties and serves as a framework if the 2 parties cannot reconcile. On the other hand, criminal actions are not just about the grievances between the defendant and the victim of the crime. In principle, crimes are committed against the people themselves (hence the case naming scheme exemplified by the United States vs. X or The People of Illinois vs. X). Even if the victim isn't particularly interested in pursuing the prosecution, the prosecutor is still within his rights to try the case. Indeed, in many violent crimes such as rape, the victim is not interested in aiding the trial. While this can sometimes derail the prosecution, it need not. Pursuing the case absent the victim's full cooperation cannot ipso facto be considered prosecutorial abuse.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Strictly speaking this is not correct. How so? Nothing you said contradicts anything that I said. Even if the victim isn't particularly interested in pursuing the prosecution, the prosecutor is still within his rights to try the case. Yes, and if the prosecutor decides to do so, he/she is responsible for that decision. That was my point.
      - abrenzel 14y ago
        Yes, I contradicted your assertions that a) it is MIT and JSTOR that have primary discretion in whether a criminal case moves forward (it is the government's sole discretion) b) MIT and JSTOR are in fact responsible for bringing criminal charges (they are not - they can only bring civil charges) c) that the prosecutor is responsible for the severity of the penalty and/or the defendant's emotional response to that penalty My disagreement with your third assertion was more implicit so let me clarify a bit. First, it is not the prosecutor's job to question whether a law's penalties are in proportion to the crime it proscribes when deciding whether to bring a case. Discretion over the severity of the punishment is left to the sentencing phase of the trial if the defendant is convicted, and it is highly likely that Aaron's sentence would not have been the maximum had he been found guilty (a fact I am sure his lawyers made him aware of). Second, under what reasonable standard can a prosecutor be held personally responsible for the emotional state of the defendant? Should it be acceptable for criminal defendants to pressure prosecutors into dropping cases by threatening self-harm or suicide in the hopes that a public outcry will harm the prosecutor's career? Try to ignore for a moment that the defendant in this case has your sympathies. Would you accept that tactic from a serial killer or rapist? It may be that the law itself is unnecessary or counterproductive. I'm certainly open to the argument that at least publicly funded research ought to be open to the public. Yet it is still the law of the land. From the facts of the case, Aaron committed an obvious crime and behaved as though he knew it were a crime. The potential price of civil disobedience is that you will in fact end up punished for it. In the end, his story (like Rosa Parks and others before him) may end up bringing about the change he wants. But to say that the prosecutor abused her authority or was personally responsible for his death is an emotional response without basis and runs counter to the very idea of a criminal justice system.