3 ms·

The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State, which in this case they have done. I’m wondering how grand juries play into this—the Fif

The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State, which in this case they have done. I’m wondering how grand juries play into this—the Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (except for those in the military, which I think he wouldn’t classify as). There’s a great article here which describes the power which Grand Juries used to wield in the indictment process, specifically the ability to act on their own, investigate, and actually challenge the federal prosecutor rather than just rubber-stamping each case: http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

neurotech1 13y ago
I remember reading several points(Wikipedia) 98% Grand Juries return an indictment, rarely narrowing or broadening the charges; 90% of Federal Criminal Cases are Plea Bargained before trial; 90% of Federal Criminal trials result in a conviction; This is why the Aaron Swartz was so wrong, once the prosecutor decided to overzealously present the charges to a grand jury, the odds were stacked against him. Snowden is in big trouble, because in this case its highly unlikely that President Obama will pardon him, although popularly requested to do so. So yes, the whole prosecution process has runaway from the original goal of justice.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Snowden will still be in HK courts after the next presidential election.
betterunix 13y ago
"The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State" One would think that, as public servants, their role is to prosecute in the interests of the public at large. That might mean going against the interests of the state, if the state is working against the public.
- baddox 13y ago
  That would only be in the case of a government that represents the people and has their consent to govern.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  You are mistaking State for Government. The State simply exists, that is why it has to be defended. The State does not act by itself (it is the Government, "in its name"). This is why the State would be defenseless if prosecutors did not exist, and this is why separation of powers is so important. I know I am speaking roughly and without technicalities, but the fact that the Government does something does not imply that the State wants is (which is, for example, why the 4th amendment exists: in order to protect, in some way, the State from the Government). And that is why the Constitution is above all mandates of the Government, even if they have been approved by Congress and the military are 'pushing' them. "The interests of the public at large" is what is meant by the State. That is why trials (those dealing with the Federation) begin with the words "The US vs whomever", not "The Government of the US" or "The President of the US".

neurotech1 13y ago

I remember reading several points(Wikipedia) 98% Grand Juries return an indictment, rarely narrowing or broadening the charges; 90% of Federal Criminal Cases are Plea Bargained before trial; 90% of Federal Criminal trials result in a conviction; This is why the Aaron Swartz was so wrong, once the prosecutor decided to overzealously present the charges to a grand jury, the odds were stacked against him. Snowden is in big trouble, because in this case its highly unlikely that President Obama will pardon him, although popularly requested to do so. So yes, the whole prosecution process has runaway from the original goal of justice.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Snowden will still be in HK courts after the next presidential election.

betterunix 13y ago

"The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State" One would think that, as public servants, their role is to prosecute in the interests of the public at large. That might mean going against the interests of the state, if the state is working against the public.

baddox 13y ago
That would only be in the case of a government that represents the people and has their consent to govern.
pfortuny 13y ago
You are mistaking State for Government. The State simply exists, that is why it has to be defended. The State does not act by itself (it is the Government, "in its name"). This is why the State would be defenseless if prosecutors did not exist, and this is why separation of powers is so important. I know I am speaking roughly and without technicalities, but the fact that the Government does something does not imply that the State wants is (which is, for example, why the 4th amendment exists: in order to protect, in some way, the State from the Government). And that is why the Constitution is above all mandates of the Government, even if they have been approved by Congress and the military are 'pushing' them. "The interests of the public at large" is what is meant by the State. That is why trials (those dealing with the Federation) begin with the words "The US vs whomever", not "The Government of the US" or "The President of the US".