Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Since when does a person have to defend the inverse of his own argument? “You believe A; logically you should also believe Not-A” is Amateur Hour stuff. The answer is it would be an ethical breech to bring false charges just because you believe the jury will convict. Sheesh. If you or Sidd think that somehow proves something about what we’re talking about, you’re both nuts.

A weak case is not that same as false charges. Once again, you avoid the difficult questions and answer an easy one instead.

And it's not the inverse, it's exactly the same thing. You said:

...I prefer it when local prosecutors bring charges when they believe they can get a conviction under the criminal statutes from a legally constituted jury, and don’t when they don’t.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Yes, I’m saying that if a prosecutor does not believe he/she can get a properly-constituted jury to return a verdict of “guilty” as to a charge on admissible evidence, he/she is ethically bound not to bring that charge, even if he/she is personally convinced of the person’s guilt. So, for example, if the prosecutor has read a sworn confession but it’s inadmissible, and the remaining evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, then the prosecutor commits an ethical breach in bringing it.

I like how you changed the hypo to soften your point, but I think what you're saying is absolutely insane. There has to be some kind of thought to the balance between what the evidence shows and what you may know the jury will do.

Based on what you just said, prosecutors should ignore murder when they have a cut and dried case if the victim is one that the community refuses to value. You have a strange sense of justice.

If you live in Alabama and you can't get your white jury to convict a white man of murdering a black man, bring the case and at least force the fact finders and our system to violate the Constitution and carry out the injustice. Jesus fucking Christ.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Putting someone through a trial where you’re expecting an acquittal is unethical, even if the defendant is a shitbag who deserves to sweat a little bit. As is holding them pretrial for as long as possible even though you know you won’t charge and/or won’t win.

I am struggling with your definition of ethics.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It’s weird how modern liberalism makes exceptions to some principles of state power if the bad guy is a particular kind of bad. But no, we don’t want a justice system where putting a person through a trial is a form of punishment for those we cannot convict. And that’s true for racists, murderers and child rapists, in case we’re going back to the well for more hypos.

No. It's not based on a "particular kind of bad." It's based on the case you have. If you have an airtight case but live in the most racist county in the country, it's unethical for you to bring that case because the jury pool is full of assholes? What you're saying is absolutely next-level crazy.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

But to enshrine a rule that a prosecutor must file charges that he or she predicts will result in an acquittal is incredibly dystopian

I think the only one proposing any rules to be enshrined is you.

The rest of us are talking about what should be done in difficult circumstances.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You should read "Just Mercy."

But I don't see how this is responsive to my question. Are you saying that prosecutors who don't think they can get a conviction for all the wrong reasons even when he has tons of evidence should go ahead with the case because the defendant may be able to get the venue changed?

TM

What I was getting to is that if, because of governmental involvement, or particular notoriety, the defendant can't get a fair and impartial review, take it elsewhere. Do the same for a trial.

What I'm suggesting is that if there is a risk the prosecution will be less than impartial, take it our of their hands. I'm not saying it's a good solution, or even that it would work. Hence the tentative tone of my post.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The latter, I hope, but analogizing a brief in the appellate court to a criminal trial against a flesh-and-blood man is not particularly illuminating.

We’ve had this argument before and no minds were changed. I just enjoy provoking conservatives to admit liberal principles, and fairness dictates that occasionally I should provoke a liberal or two to espousing some frighteningly illiberal ideas, and “We should make people go through a trial because that’s the worst we’re allowed to do to them” is something I can provoke a liberal to say if we start with the presumption the defendant is a cop, or a racist, or best of all a racist cop. But it’s a terrible policy to have prosecutors who “vindicate” the victims of crimes by bringing charges that in their judgment are doomed to failure. It makes charging someone with a crime a noble act, and if God forbid it is ever made the official policy of the land, it will harm the poor and disenfranchised and minorities a million times more than it will afflict the comfortable.

I am losing more and more respect for you by the post.

You put someone through a trial because the evidence warrants a fucking trial and both the defendant and the victim deserve the completion of the process and a decision. Absolutely no one is saying that you put the defendant through the trial as some form of punishment. It is part of our process when you commit (or are arrested for committing) a crime. Prosecutors should have a duty to go through with the entire process if the amount of evidence of guilt hits a certain level.

You are being an asshole because you're taking a principle that makes sense when you're talking about whether or not one has sufficient evidence and changing it to whether that evidence would be sufficient enough in the minds of unreasonable people. The "reasonable person" standard is there for this exact reason.

"I like to provoke conservatives and liberals." You're full of fucking shit. And this type of bullshit is what racist, homophobic, or sexist criminal assholes depend on. This whole conversation disgusts me.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Then vote against the guy whose discretion you disagree with, or whose idea of what constitutes a "high-profile" case is different from yours. But to enshrine a rule that a prosecutor must file charges that he or she predicts will result in an acquittal is incredibly dystopian, but you can’t see that because you assume it’s a weapon that will only ever be pointed at the enemy. Funny thing about the criminal justice system: the more you empower it, the worse it gets for the people for whom it’s always been bad.

If I didn't post it in the post you are responding to, I know I have said it elsewhere: take the whole process out of the "tainted" hands. (I use the quotation there not to suggest I mean the opposite, but because I am using it as a term of art). Presumably, if the review is impartial, it will reveal whether or not there is a case, and the decision to indict will be more favorably received.

I know, I know, Kenneth Starr. But nobody's going to spend Kenneth Starr money on a shooting resulting from two drunks fighting with each other.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Since when does a person have to defend the inverse of his own argument? “You believe A; logically you should also believe Not-A” is Amateur Hour stuff. The answer is it would be an ethical breech to bring false charges just because you believe the jury will convict. Sheesh. If you or Sidd think that somehow proves something about what we’re talking about, you’re both nuts.

I wasn't saying "false" charges but rather weak charges. And, no, I was not suggesting that you would actually support such a decision.

I was suggesting that your view, that prosecutors should give consideration to whether a jurors are likely to ignore their oaths, is more closely related to that circumstance.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

A weak case is not that same as false charges. Once again, you avoid the difficult questions and answer an easy one instead.

And it's not the inverse, it's exactly the same thing. You said:

Yeah, but to imply I mean a prosecutor could bring charges that even he or she himself believes are not supported by the evidence is not something you could reasonably infer from my position.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Agreed. And that’s why there should be electoral consequences for guessing wrong, down to the amount of budget you claim you need to file the cases that are uphill battles.

"Should be," in the sense that we need to genetically engineer a better kind of citizen?

We could have a lot more democracy than we now do. All sorts of government decisions could be decided by an electronic referendum of anyone who cares to vote. I do not believe you think this would make for better policy, at least when you are not trolling liberals.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Should be," in the sense that we need to genetically engineer a better kind of citizen?

We could have a lot more democracy than we now do. All sorts of government decisions could be decided by an electronic referendum of anyone who cares to vote. I do not believe you think this would make for better policy, at least when you are not trolling liberals.

Can you imagine how Atticus would react if zoning issues were all decided by referendum?

It'd be sort of fun to watch.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I wasn't saying "false" charges but rather weak charges. And, no, I was not suggesting that you would actually support such a decision.

I was suggesting that your view, that prosecutors should give consideration to whether a jurors are likely to ignore their oaths, is more closely related to that circumstance.

Now that’s a discussion worth having. If a prosecutor ran for office saying he would only charge cases that a “reasonable” jury would convict on, but left out the part where he didn’t believe his jury venire consisted of reasonable people, and brought a bunch of charges where his juries kept acquitting, but “justice” was being served because “the process” was being respected, I think he’d avoid bar charges for sure, but it wouldn’t be a thing to be proud of.

I don’t get how someone with progressive principles thinks it’s good to have state agents who say “Well, at least we tried, and that’s something.” Again, I think everyone is fantasizing that we can change the rule so the exception only applies to hate crimes and (maybe) rape, but that is a fantasy. If a prosecutor is allowed, or Wonk and Adder say compelled, to bring charges that the prosecutor expects will result in acquittal, brace yourself for a shitload of point-making and a whole lot of misery for the historically victimized.

But I get that everyone here thinks we should have Cop Court where special rules apply and you’re prosecuted by a different person than the usual guy and you’re tried by a jury that is somehow less racist than the community in which the crime occurred. Try it. My guess is that it will be more excruciating to real justice than you might expect.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can you imagine how Atticus would react if zoning issues were all decided by referendum?

It'd be sort of fun to watch.

You mean like in San Francisco? Yeah, it IS fun to watch.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You put someone through a trial because the evidence warrants a fucking trial and both the defendant and the victim deserve the completion of the process and a decision. Absolutely no one is saying that you put the defendant through the trial as some form of punishment. It is part of our process when you commit (or are arrested for committing) a crime. Prosecutors should have a duty to go through with the entire process if the amount of evidence of guilt hits a certain level.

There is real estate between “I can prove every element to my satisfaction and I’m very reasonable” and “I can get 12 people chosen at random in my jurisdiction to agree that I have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” I’m saying the second is the better rubric in every single case for a decision to charge, and I want the people with the authority to bring criminal charges to use it in every case. I’m sure we vote similarly on all other issues; perhaps we would vote for different DAs.

You are being an asshole because you're taking a principle that makes sense when you're talking about whether or not one has sufficient evidence and changing it to whether that evidence would be sufficient enough in the minds of unreasonable people. The "reasonable person" standard is there for this exact reason.

It appears the only difference in our positions is whether a DA should account for the jury he will have rather than an imaginary one that is perfectly reasonable. The rubric you’re using is one that results in a lot more charges. I’m sorry this conversation disgusts you, but I find it weird that it does. These are ideas, after all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can you imagine how Atticus would react if zoning issues were all decided by referendum?

Arguably an area where we have too much democracy for everyone's good.