Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Finally, let me add that we should put your argument in perspective. We currently live in a system where, if you are black and are murdered by a cop, you can expect the cop who murdered you to not only not face a trial, but not even an indictment because the system is so fucking fixed in favor of cops that they are able to continually act with impunity. Your argument is that you are terrified that prosecutors will run wild bringing cops to trial as a way to score political points when they have strong evidence to convict but probably won't because juries don't convict cops. This is the nightmare scenario you've been standing on your head all day trying to protect us from. Maybe you're so in the weeds of trying to provoke liberals (too!) that you've lost any actual real world context.
|
No, my argument is that prosecutors will bring ANYBODY THEY WANT to trial, not cops in particular. In fact, as we all know, they’re inclined AGAINST charging cops under both systems; your proposed rule would only alter the behavior of DAs who are personally inclined neutrally or against cops, but live in jurisdictions that will acquit because of the jury pool. But meanwhile, you’ve changed the decisionmaking for all DAs, even really bad ones, to say that if they believe in the guilt of the defendant, any defendant, it’s okay to charge even if the jury is expected to acquit for any reason, racist or not.
If you’ve been assuming my desire is to protect cops from political prosecutions, you’re mistaken. I don’t particularly care. I just think by pushing on this lever, you’re tinkering with machinery that’s a significant protection of civil rights FOR DEFENDANTS. Not cops; all defendants. That is my nightmare scenario — that there would be no outer limit to the bringing of charges for “vindication” and show trials.
BTW, local prosecutors have immunity from malicious prosecution suits, in case that affects your calculation of the incentives.
Threaded Mode