This prosecutor seems to have gotten her degree from the same school that gives creationists degrees in biology:
http://www.examiner.com/article/ferg...law-to-rely-on
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-s-story.html
:bulb:
Printable View
This prosecutor seems to have gotten her degree from the same school that gives creationists degrees in biology:
http://www.examiner.com/article/ferg...law-to-rely-on
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-s-story.html
:bulb:
Prosecutors should be shot on sight:
http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-pro...-police-267357
Love your sources and the character assassination. God forbid we can disagree with someone without thinking of them as some kind of a demon.
Didn't look at the first two (thedailybeast Minx, really?) but I didn't find anything exceptional from the Newsweek article. Maybe places too much emphasis on one specific case but that's a basic problem with all journalism. Beyond that it just hit the reasonable points one could and should expect. De facto segregation in the area, white cops and black suspects, prosecutors being too cozy with cops, etc. I think calling for prosecutors to be shot might be excessive, we do need them and I think it's unavoidable that they develop close ties with the police forces so heavily involved in their cases (they also frequently develop close ties with the defense attorneys they bargain and reach deals with), but the way things play out here politically with DAs drives me nuts. I don't ever vote for former DAs when they run for other office, I think it being an elected position creates all kinds of bias and distortion, for them and for their communities, which they will never be able to escape. It should be a civil-service position. I think that ideally prosecutors and public defenders should be the same pool of attorneys too.
Diverting: This is an interesting idea, and I can see the merits of doing this, but wouldn't this also encourage the prosecution and defense attorneys in any particular case to become too friendly with one another? This could lead to one side acting in their friend's best interest instead of the client's/state's.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm mostly shocked by the matter of the unconstitutional statute and the misinformation of the jury
There is a risk that one group end up subordinated to the other, a risk which would be significantly higher if the DA position was still elected. I don't think it would be any worse than what we've got now, though, where the public defenders are incredibly over-worked and underfunded in comparison to their prosecutorial counterparts and those guys also have similarly friendly relationships with the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Don't be confused by the term jury, Minx. Grand juries aren't anything like trial juries....the proceedings, evidence, 'burdens of proof', and 'verdicts' are totally different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Convening a grand jury is a prosecutor's way of justifying a full-blown trial....but it can also be used to avoid a trial, too. A grand jury 'indictment' just gives a district attorney a green light to move forward with criminal charges, for the most, by deciding that there's enough conflicting evidence that should be heard, and adjudicated, by a trial.
But DA's and prosecutors don't need a grand jury -- they can take cases to trial at their discretion. Making matters more confusing is that all these rules and statutes vary by state.
For example, Missouri has state Sunshine laws that meant grand jury testimony was open to the public, but New York state laws protect grand jury secrecy.
Yes, I am capable of googling the term "grand jury", I was referring to the presentation of an invalid law and to the ridiculous manner in which it was "explained" later on
Oh yeah, that was pretty shocking :sour: but there's no 'opponent' to make objections to cited case law, because it's not a trial. I don't know why the judge didn't set things straight for the jury -- if that's a procedural glitch in Missouri or what. Maybe someone like Fuzzy can explain how/why that happened. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You realize that if there was an opponent, it would be the defense attorney, right? :noob:
You know there are different standards for grand jury proceedings, right? And if case law is part of the equation, it usually results in proceeding to trial, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Public Defenders have smaller and limited budgets, so it's worth asking whether Justice is equal, or can be bought.....
Except you're attacking the prosecutor for not trying hard enough. What makes you think they'd try hard enough during trial?
Well, they wouldn't....if a trial meant pitting police against the people that "voted" them to office. Police and prosecutors have a symbiotic relationship that only works to a certain degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When push comes to shove.....it becomes clear that the US has two distinct systems. Those who can pay privately, and those who rely on public services. They're definitely not equal, especially since tax dollars are involved.
The inconvenient truth is that prosecutors try too hard in one way, and not hard enough in other ways. They're reluctant to prosecute their funders, even when they participate in illegal activity.
It's amazing how many non-sequiturs you can insert in a single paragraph. What the heck does ability to pay have to do with prosecutors not trying very hard to convict police officers? Do defendants pay for prosecutors now?
Public prosecutors have more funding than public defenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Aren't grand jury proceedings generally confidential, while trials are open? Considering it's an elected office, I'd say that makes a huge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It also means a greater chance to piss off both the police and the people who support them.
That's exactly the problem with making this an elected position. You're doing justice wrong if your considerations run foremost towards what your voters will say about a trial.
I think the intended purpose of having elections for these positions is to give the legal system more legitimacy at the local level; after all, some federally appointed prosecutor isn't going to be very sensitive to the concerns of the locals in the area where he's appointed, which would affect their willingness to cooperate with the judiciary and the police. The real problem is that there are multiple local groups with sharply diverging preferences, which means the prosecutor ultimately has to choose sides (and in most cases, they will side with the majority).
And you actually think that it's a good thing to be "sensitive about the concerns of the locals"? It's a judicial position. Being "sensitive" is something a politician should go for. Mixing both aspects is just asking for trouble.
Seriously, what do we have this thing called the "code of law" for? That is the measure a prosecutor should abide by - and not whether you're stepping on someone's feet or not. Would even be a good idea to shuffle prosecutors around so they don't get too cozy with the locals.
Otherwise you're just hosing the minorities in whatever area you have those "sensitive" guys.
Isn't that what Lewk's thread is about, with everyone bashing Lewk over supporting justice over practicality and local concerns? You're not going to have a functioning legal system if you only care about punishing crime in the abstract. You need to convince the public that the system is fair and cognizant of their concerns. Plus you make it sound like there's one perfect way to deal with crime and every other way is pandering to some group.
That's what politics and the legislative is about, Loki. Don't like the laws? Get them changed through the political system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The judicative is NOT about pandering to group interests. Your sentiment is exactly what lead to this kind of mess. There's a reason why Justicia is depicted as a blind woman, Loki.
They are generally confidential but. . . it's a weird sort of confidential. The records themselves get sealed and there is no obligation to let anyone observe the proceedings or even tell anyone they're happening. But the members of the grand jury and any witnesses they call can and do talk about the proceedings freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Loki, there's a pretty massive gap between "federal appointment" and "local election." City-managers aren't selected by the feds, nor are city attorneys (distinct from the DA's office) or a host of other city or county positions. All of those still feel the pull of electoral politics of course, anything touching on governance does, but they do get more insulated from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Funny how that exact line of argument also supports the position of those who want things like, say, gay marriage, to not get touched by the courts at all. You don't give a rat's ass about the process, just that however it works it does so to fit your subjective views of what's right and just.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Oh, pardon me, Mr. On-A-High-Horse for not covering every single detail. Next up: I shall compose a judicial essay consisting of 100 pages just to covery every single detail. Might bore everyone to tears, but, hey, you insisted on that.
I mean, sure, we were talking about problematical and probably criminal issues, but, hey, let's also drag constitutional issues into this mess just so that no one can say anything because it's such a complex issue that you can object to everything nilly-willy because one might overlook a detail you disagree with on a subjective level...
Well, yes, but if it's out in the open I'd think it's worse to do very poorly. In secrecy, he could be doing a piss poor job, nobody would be the wiser, police happy. In the open, he would have to do at least a not too shitty job, which might piss off the police a bit more, but considering at that point there's not too much he could do about that.. Anyway, if you're talking about public proceedings with suspected bias, openness would be what to go for if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I think Khen is more talking about pandering and Loki more about adjusting a lot less to local concerns. I agree that the prosecutors should take local concerns into account to a certain extant, but on the other extreme, when I hear the words "US", "prosecutors" and "local concerns" I can't help but think of DAs in the south not properly going after racial murders while hammering down on black suspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Of course at some point you do need adjusting. Over here the prosecutors are not elected but civil servants, and the government basically has guidelines on what to prosecute and what not. Considering it's not only unwanted but also impossible to throw the full legal system at everybody who commits a crime, this will always be needed. Now I live in a fairly small country where it's reasonable that this comes from the national government, but in a country as big as the USA it's only logical that this is done more locally. I would probably prefer that not the DA, but someone (or some body) that hires DAs be electable, to avoid single cases becoming electoral issues for the prosecutors. Over here the justice minister sets the guidelines for prosecutors, but he is not allowed to influence single cases.
Wouldn't that be more the other way around? That an unconstitutional law about marriage should always be overturned by the courts, and not ignored because of local concerns (i.e. anti-gay sentiments)?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Isn't this also one of the reasons the federal government pretty much stepped in on states in the 60s? That they had, and enforced, racist policies (that's your local concerns), and did nothing about it because their voters didn't want that?
That is a weird way of confidentiality :p I'd expect at least the members of the jury to be sworn to secrecy, to be honest - if witnesses want to talk about what they said, I can understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
That actually reminded me of what happened here with the Wilders trial - the prosecutors thought the law had not been broken and dropped the case. This was appealed by people with standing (which aren't hard to find in discrimination cases :p), and the court decided that there was probably cause and ordered the prosecutors to bring charges. As expected, the prosecutors were reluctant and pleaded acquittal during the trial. However, even when they plead acquittal, they do have to present all the evidence, victims get a say in court, people who want to claim damages were also added, etc., and judges can decide that even though the prosecutors pleaded for acquittal, they will convict him after all since they are independent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In the end he was acquitted, by the way, which was also the right decision if you ask me. But on the flipside, if he had not been brought to trial he would never been formally cleared, either.
Anyway, even if the prosecutors would not be trying very hard, they would have to present all the evidence, testimony, etc., in public, in front of a judge and jury instead of a murky jury with a reputation for rubber stamping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It's got nothing to do with you not being precise enough and everything to do with you trying to polevault onto your own incredibly high mount and lambast posters like Lewk and Dread when they make that EXACT argument, using the same damn wording and meaning, but about a subject where you don't agree with it, you hypocritical jackass.
How would that be the other way around? Khend said that if you don't like the laws, that's a matter for the legislatures and you should turn to the political system, that the court isn't for pandering to group interests. Gay marriage isn't (well, wasn't) the law, it was against the law and there was a clearly identified group seeking specific redress and exception from the weight of that much more broadly applicable law.Quote:
Wouldn't that be more the other way around? That an unconstitutional law about marriage should always be overturned by the courts, and not ignored because of local concerns (i.e. anti-gay sentiments)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Errr... what on earth gave you that impression? :bulb: That is an extremely weird characterisation of Lewk's position in that thread.
I suspect there might be some ethical discussion to be had about the consequences for the groups involved and about erring on the side of justice as well as freedom, equality and gay brotherhood. Moreover, there may be some differences between complete arbitrariness and creating case law.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think the "real" problem is that DAs are expected to prosecute crimes....but have an aversion to prosecuting police because of their symbiotic relationship, and bias. All other arrests involving Officer Wilson were 'put on hold' during the grand jury -- because they knew the outcome could effect those future prosecutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You went on to mention legitimacy, and convincing the public that the system is fair, but somehow missed those were reasons for Furguson protests? The locals didn't have confidence in the police or the DA, and requests for a special prosecutor were denied.
Yeah, our civil rights issues are nowhere near as pressing or potentially oppressive as law enforcement and criminal conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Meaningless rhetoric meant to make one position sound more noble.Quote:
and about erring on the side of justice as well as freedom, equality and gay brotherhood.
You're going to have to explain that one, Minx, but I'm not picking up where you're assigning the distinctions and how you're doing it.Quote:
Moreover, there may be some differences between complete arbitrariness and creating case law.
Theruling class needs police to control this nation by force. That's why theydidn't charge Darren Wilson.
Thereaction from people is fierce. So they made a show of resignation withoutseverance pay. A little compensation for Michael Brown's life.
“It’s anoppressive organization now controlled by the one percent of corporate America.Corporate America is using police forces as their mercenaries.”
By Jay Syrmopoulos on December 2, 2014
Ferguson, Mo. – Retired Philadelphia Police Captain, Ray Lewis, has amessage for America. In a recent interview, Lewis makes it known that gone arethe days of the police working for the people.
According to Lewis,
“It’s an oppressive organization now controlled by the one percent ofcorporate America. Corporate America is using police forces as theirmercenaries.”
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ret...ImvQu7pWoqA.99
Why It’sImpossible to Indict a Cop
It’s not just Ferguson—here’s how the system protects police.
SCOTUS and the license to kill
The sick joke of self-regulation
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...messages/45336