5 ms·

Judge says prosecutors should follow the law. Prosecutors revolt.

230 points by Cadsby 13y ago

DiabloD3 13y ago
I'm glad someone is finally standing up for the rights of common citizens. I really don't want to see the social experiment of the United States end in a failure, and every day our rights are eroded, we get closer to that. I like this country, and consider myself a patriot. I just also have to recognize that the people who participate in running this country do not always have our best interests at heart.
- kiba 13y ago
  I really don't want to see the social experiment of the United States end in a failure, and every day our rights are eroded, we get closer to that. If you watch television, you will think that the world is becoming worse. After all, news is only when rare things happen, and usually very bad things at that. Now, I am not saying that that criminal justice system is in need of a huge overhaul. It is a real human right problem that needs to be fixed. But what you're saying is that you think that we are losing rights. Are we really? Consider that in the last 50 years or so, we are gaining more rights. Even animal gains more right. Perhaps this is not the case in the last 10 years or so. Maybe we really are losing rights. Consider this: When somebody brings a human right problem, that is a good omen. That mean somebody acknowledges the problem. If a human right problem remains hidden from view, our perception will be wrong, because it means we think we have more right or freedom than we really have and we can't do anything about it. So the Snowden revelation is good news, but the bad news is that Snowden is necessary in the first place and the fact that it had remain hidden across two presidency. So if the media is openly reporting abuses done by prosecutors and other agents. That is a good thing. It means that our error correction mechanism is starting to work, which will hopefully lead to a change that curb the abuse and prevent it from happening. But what about our freedom over the last ten years? What's the reality? One of the freedom index graph says that our freedom across the world is quite stable, maybe increasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Trends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Trends I have yet to look at other graph. But if you're going to say that we are losing our rights, maybe it's a good idea to quantify how much over what time period.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I don't disagree with your analysis, but people don't gain or lose rights based on government whims. People have inalienable rights that can be respected or violated. This may seem like a semantic point, but I think it's important that to remember that fundamental rights, like the right to to a fair trial, exist no matter whether the law and its agents honor those rights. When governments fail to respect inalienable rights, they lose legitimacy.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Inalienable rights is verbage that sounds good, but means practically nothing. Do you have a right to life? Well no - America is one of the only first world nations to still have the death penalty. Liberty? The standard faire of our justice systems is to remove that. Pursuit of happiness? This is the only one I'd argue everyone does have, that actually is inalienable. The loss of that tends to actually cause problems. But everything else comes stamped with some big provisos about one's place and actions within society, and a discussion where we hamstring ourselves over what is and isn't a right ultimately is what erodes those we do have - worrying too much about whether something is a right, rather then if what we're doing is right.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        I sounds like you agree that what is right exists outside of legal definitions, which was my point. The point being that moral authority does not derive from the legal code. To the extent that governments can be blamed for failing to protect the rights to life, liberty, property, conscience, etc., they can be found to be immoral or unjust. And at a certain point, the laws of the government (or even the government itself) loses legitimacy. This was really the thesis of the Declaration of Independence.
  - ozymandius182 13y ago
    You are forgetting there is a difference between the perception of freedom and actual freedom. While someone may be free to write about the problem, if there is no change in the system, is there actual freedom? People in the US often equate the freedom of the press, which is under attack as it is, with freedom. The freedom to speak is not the freedom to act, and for many reasons rightly so. In this case, if the justice system doesn't uphold justice, we end up with only an escape valve for the pressure, but no change in the fundamental system. Looking at the last 50 years, I would find it hard to say that everyone has it better. Look at the convictions for possession of crack cocaine versus cocaine powder. Things have gotten better for some people, but for many others, the world hasn't changed that much, especially for minorities in criminal cases.
Crito 13y ago
In situations where accusations of widespread corruption, misconduct, unethical action, etc are made, a phrase that is often trotted out in defense of the accused is "just a few bad apples". It's not WhereEver Police Department that has an issue with racial bias and violent escalation, it's just a few bad apples. Our school district does not have a bullying problem, it's just a few bad apples. Etc. What is interesting about this cliched defense is that it is actually a malformed statement of the original cliche, "A few bad apples spoil the barrel." The original cliche refers to a phenomenon where overripe or rotten apples release ethylene gas, which is a ripening agent. This ethylene gas will accelerate the ripening/rot of nearby apples. If you are not vigilant in weeding out the bad apples, the rot will rapidly spread and soon there will be no good apples left to rescue. Human "bad apples" don't release ethylene gas, but they corrupt their peers nevertheless. When a good cop backs the cover story of his corrupt cop partner, he becomes a bad cop as well. When prosecutors take up arms in defense of their corrupt prosecutor peers, they become no better than the initially targeted. If school administrators allow a bully to have his way for too long, then everybody else sees that they can get away with it too and before long you have daily fistfights behind the school at the end of the day. Institutions that have had widespread unchallenged corruption for decades rarely need keyhole surgery, they need amputations.
- MBlume 13y ago
  Related: I don't understand how the "few bad apples" defense always seems to be used to argue for "so ignore it" rather than "and by the way, when we find a bad apple, it goes straight in the garbage disposal where it belongs". Like, all these prosecutors are going apeshit because a judge dared to say they should possibly lose their licenses -- what about the idea that they should serve time, time comparable to what they may have capriciously caused innocents to serve? "Law and order" is all well and good, but I'd like to see it go both ways once in a while.
  - kiba 13y ago
    I suppose there is some tradeoff involved with crafting new rules, but all the new rules that I have seen suggested seem sensible and reasonable.
_greim_ 13y ago
In the interest of hearing both sides of the story, can someone explain what legitimate complaints prosecutors may have about these developments, if any?
- bagels 13y ago
  They fear corrupt judges, perhaps, theoretically. Maybe the proliferation of laws that make everything illegal. But probably, they just want immunity for their crimes.
iamthepieman 13y ago
I applaud this judge. I also feel like I'm not hearing the full story.
rbcgerard 13y ago
Two things: 1. I suspect the genisis of this immunity was to inoculate prosecutors from coercion by politicians - which is probably a good thing. But I would be curious to know about the logic behind it. 2. While perhaps it might be worthwhile to have some level of immunity that logic frays somewhat when acts that would generally be considered immoral and perhaps criminal are unaddressable.
- vilhelm_s 13y ago
  The "absolute immunity" for prosecutors was established in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976). The logic is that if prosecutors could be sued by people they accused but failed to convict, that "would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust." (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Imbler+v.+Pachtman&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&case=5758861728040203406&scilh=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Imbler+v.+Pachtman&...)
  - rbcgerard 13y ago
    interesting, thank you!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
etanazir 13y ago
One problem with the Judge's statement is that it is beyond the scope of an actual case or controversy. A Judge should judge each case individually not make up general rules and policies to prospectively apply to future behaviour, since that is for the legislature and executive in a separation of powers system. If the Judge wants to issue a warning or punishment to a particular prosecutor for a particular inappropriate behavior that would be in bounds; but media statements designed to influence elections are out of bounds for american judicial behavior.

230 points by Cadsby 13y ago

I'm glad someone is finally standing up for the rights of common citizens. I really don't want to see the social experiment of the United States end in a failure, and every day our rights are eroded, we get closer to that. I like this country, and consider myself a patriot. I just also have to recognize that the people who participate in running this country do not always have our best interests at heart.

kiba 13y ago
I really don't want to see the social experiment of the United States end in a failure, and every day our rights are eroded, we get closer to that. If you watch television, you will think that the world is becoming worse. After all, news is only when rare things happen, and usually very bad things at that. Now, I am not saying that that criminal justice system is in need of a huge overhaul. It is a real human right problem that needs to be fixed. But what you're saying is that you think that we are losing rights. Are we really? Consider that in the last 50 years or so, we are gaining more rights. Even animal gains more right. Perhaps this is not the case in the last 10 years or so. Maybe we really are losing rights. Consider this: When somebody brings a human right problem, that is a good omen. That mean somebody acknowledges the problem. If a human right problem remains hidden from view, our perception will be wrong, because it means we think we have more right or freedom than we really have and we can't do anything about it. So the Snowden revelation is good news, but the bad news is that Snowden is necessary in the first place and the fact that it had remain hidden across two presidency. So if the media is openly reporting abuses done by prosecutors and other agents. That is a good thing. It means that our error correction mechanism is starting to work, which will hopefully lead to a change that curb the abuse and prevent it from happening. But what about our freedom over the last ten years? What's the reality? One of the freedom index graph says that our freedom across the world is quite stable, maybe increasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Trends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Trends I have yet to look at other graph. But if you're going to say that we are losing our rights, maybe it's a good idea to quantify how much over what time period.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I don't disagree with your analysis, but people don't gain or lose rights based on government whims. People have inalienable rights that can be respected or violated. This may seem like a semantic point, but I think it's important that to remember that fundamental rights, like the right to to a fair trial, exist no matter whether the law and its agents honor those rights. When governments fail to respect inalienable rights, they lose legitimacy.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Inalienable rights is verbage that sounds good, but means practically nothing. Do you have a right to life? Well no - America is one of the only first world nations to still have the death penalty. Liberty? The standard faire of our justice systems is to remove that. Pursuit of happiness? This is the only one I'd argue everyone does have, that actually is inalienable. The loss of that tends to actually cause problems. But everything else comes stamped with some big provisos about one's place and actions within society, and a discussion where we hamstring ourselves over what is and isn't a right ultimately is what erodes those we do have - worrying too much about whether something is a right, rather then if what we're doing is right.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      I sounds like you agree that what is right exists outside of legal definitions, which was my point. The point being that moral authority does not derive from the legal code. To the extent that governments can be blamed for failing to protect the rights to life, liberty, property, conscience, etc., they can be found to be immoral or unjust. And at a certain point, the laws of the government (or even the government itself) loses legitimacy. This was really the thesis of the Declaration of Independence.
- ozymandius182 13y ago
  You are forgetting there is a difference between the perception of freedom and actual freedom. While someone may be free to write about the problem, if there is no change in the system, is there actual freedom? People in the US often equate the freedom of the press, which is under attack as it is, with freedom. The freedom to speak is not the freedom to act, and for many reasons rightly so. In this case, if the justice system doesn't uphold justice, we end up with only an escape valve for the pressure, but no change in the fundamental system. Looking at the last 50 years, I would find it hard to say that everyone has it better. Look at the convictions for possession of crack cocaine versus cocaine powder. Things have gotten better for some people, but for many others, the world hasn't changed that much, especially for minorities in criminal cases.

Crito 13y ago

In situations where accusations of widespread corruption, misconduct, unethical action, etc are made, a phrase that is often trotted out in defense of the accused is "just a few bad apples". It's not WhereEver Police Department that has an issue with racial bias and violent escalation, it's just a few bad apples. Our school district does not have a bullying problem, it's just a few bad apples. Etc. What is interesting about this cliched defense is that it is actually a malformed statement of the original cliche, "A few bad apples spoil the barrel." The original cliche refers to a phenomenon where overripe or rotten apples release ethylene gas, which is a ripening agent. This ethylene gas will accelerate the ripening/rot of nearby apples. If you are not vigilant in weeding out the bad apples, the rot will rapidly spread and soon there will be no good apples left to rescue. Human "bad apples" don't release ethylene gas, but they corrupt their peers nevertheless. When a good cop backs the cover story of his corrupt cop partner, he becomes a bad cop as well. When prosecutors take up arms in defense of their corrupt prosecutor peers, they become no better than the initially targeted. If school administrators allow a bully to have his way for too long, then everybody else sees that they can get away with it too and before long you have daily fistfights behind the school at the end of the day. Institutions that have had widespread unchallenged corruption for decades rarely need keyhole surgery, they need amputations.

MBlume 13y ago
Related: I don't understand how the "few bad apples" defense always seems to be used to argue for "so ignore it" rather than "and by the way, when we find a bad apple, it goes straight in the garbage disposal where it belongs". Like, all these prosecutors are going apeshit because a judge dared to say they should possibly lose their licenses -- what about the idea that they should serve time, time comparable to what they may have capriciously caused innocents to serve? "Law and order" is all well and good, but I'd like to see it go both ways once in a while.
- kiba 13y ago
  I suppose there is some tradeoff involved with crafting new rules, but all the new rules that I have seen suggested seem sensible and reasonable.

_greim_ 13y ago

In the interest of hearing both sides of the story, can someone explain what legitimate complaints prosecutors may have about these developments, if any?

bagels 13y ago
They fear corrupt judges, perhaps, theoretically. Maybe the proliferation of laws that make everything illegal. But probably, they just want immunity for their crimes.

iamthepieman 13y ago

I applaud this judge. I also feel like I'm not hearing the full story.

rbcgerard 13y ago

Two things: 1. I suspect the genisis of this immunity was to inoculate prosecutors from coercion by politicians - which is probably a good thing. But I would be curious to know about the logic behind it. 2. While perhaps it might be worthwhile to have some level of immunity that logic frays somewhat when acts that would generally be considered immoral and perhaps criminal are unaddressable.

vilhelm_s 13y ago
The "absolute immunity" for prosecutors was established in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976). The logic is that if prosecutors could be sued by people they accused but failed to convict, that "would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust." (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Imbler+v.+Pachtman&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&case=5758861728040203406&scilh=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Imbler+v.+Pachtman&...)
- rbcgerard 13y ago
  interesting, thank you!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

etanazir 13y ago

One problem with the Judge's statement is that it is beyond the scope of an actual case or controversy. A Judge should judge each case individually not make up general rules and policies to prospectively apply to future behaviour, since that is for the legislature and executive in a separation of powers system. If the Judge wants to issue a warning or punishment to a particular prosecutor for a particular inappropriate behavior that would be in bounds; but media statements designed to influence elections are out of bounds for american judicial behavior.