Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yup.
And also, how can selective prosecution not apply as a defense where Blacks are being targeted for so many prosecutions where Whites are not? Statistically, that’s an all but irrefutable defense.
ETA: Also, shouldn’t charging for career or political reasons be considered corruption? If not, why? How is that not a prosecutor exploiting office for personal gain?
|
Presumably, most prosecutors want to be well-regarded in their careers. Therefore, they want to prosecute cases that 1) they think they are likely to win, 2) may get them favorable press coverage, 3) they think will present them as "being tough on crime" or "taking a stand against domestic violence" or whatever. Allowing a defendant to probe into these motives to establish that some or most all all of the prosecutor's motivations were abusive (whatever the standard would be) does not seem like a workable or even desirable solution. That said, I think there is a good argument that prosecutors should have some oversight and that there should be consequences for abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The number of prosecutors that will continue to fight a case even when there is evidence of a wrongful conviction is staggering and appalling.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...nvictions.html
