Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Do you really see no daylight between a "weak" case and one that is not supported by the evidence?

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

So, in drafting laws where we use the standard of what a reasonable person would or should do, we can apply the standard intelligently to create the law. But when it comes to determining whether to bring a case based on whether someone's actions have violated those standards, the prosecutor must just abandon a case because it's been brought in a jurisdiction filled with unreasonable people, and outright ignore the law and evidence because we shouldn't put the defendant through a trial?

I think you really think what you're saying makes sense and that we are all upset because we're liberals being hoisted by our own petards. But I don't really don't get it.

You are being disingenuous above when you say, '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.”' If a prosecutor can look at the evidence (eg., I have clear video of a white man walking into a church and shooting an 80 year old black minister in the face) and make the determination that he has an overwhelming amount of evidence to convict, then he absolutely has a duty to go to trial even if he sits in the most racist county in the country and he knows his jurors will completely ignore the law. If you want to talk about what amounts to sufficient evidence to get a conviction, that's a different story. But if there is no such thing because the jury refuses to consider it, what's the issue? That we shouldn't put a defendant through the ordeal of a trial? Fuck outta here.

What is this awful alternative you have in mind? That we are constantly bringing people to trial unnecessarily when the prosecutor knows he can't get a conviction? That this is somehow a form of punishment for the poor? Cops and prosecutors will get together and arrest, indict and try people with very little evidence to teach them a lesson?* That police officers will be put through a trial because victims deserve it even though we know we won't get a conviction? In what world are you living? From what perspective is not trying someone based on juries ignoring the law preferable to subjecting someone where the evidence most definitely indicates that he committed a crime to a trial? If we aren't going to apply the laws we have written based on whether the prosecutor thinks the jury likes the victim enough to convict, what's the point of having laws at all? Cops should just arrest someone, talk to a prosecutor, and then let the person go, depending on who their neighbors are. Better yet, let's just make all the prosecutors cops too. That will be even more efficient.

The reason why this conversation disgusts me is because your thinking is the type that empowers racist and homophobic murderers or rapists. It's what makes the system so distasteful and why it has been that way for so long.

By the way, this conversation is especially disturbing given your fucking moniker. You should change it immediately.

TM

*By the way, if this is your argument, you are being intentionally disingenuous because choosing to go to trial with little or factually insufficient evidence is completely different than putting someone through a trial with overwhelming evidence even though you know such evidence will be ignored. The fact that you're arguing that the latter is or could be a problem for our judicial system is laughable.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Are you just not reading or something? Do you need a dictionary?

I know you think this is a fun way to score points, but how exactly would this work? The historically victimized are already being victimized by actually getting convicted in a law enforcement system that is designed to victimize them.

You think that given the discretion to bring cases supported by enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury that prosecutors would suddenly start bringing losing show-cases instead? What makes you think there are a ton of juries out there waiting to nullify in favor of the victimized?

I think we should have a cop prosecutor because the local one is inherently conflicted when a case of alleged cop wrongdoing comes up.

I actually don't think that's a special rule.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

All I want, at the end of the day, is never to have a prosecutor say to himself “We’re very unlikely to get a conviction, but let’s file anyway because the public deserves a trial.”

If instead we have a world where a prosecutor holds a press conference where s/he says “We knew it was a tough case, but we were convinced of the defendant’s guilt and we’re surprised the jury did what it did,” that’s the present condition and I wouldn’t tinker with it.

Does anyone want a prosecutor who brings more weak cases? Again, I’m surprised anyone would want that, and I reassert you can only claim to want that when you compartmentalize the cop cases, the race cases, and (possibly) certain sex crimes, but I’m reasonably certain that compartmentalization won’t last 30 seconds in reality, and will be net-terrible for civil rights. If that makes me history’s greatest monster, so be it.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Both juries are imaginary when the prosecutor is making the charging decision. It's just that in your scenario, the prosecutor is supposed to make assumptions about the biases of the people randomly assigned to the jury.

An assumption of reasonableness sounds a hell of a lot better to me.

How you can claim your way is worse for the victimized is beyond me. Your way, they go to jail every time.

And just so we're clear, assumptions about credulity, intelligence, openness to particular kinds of charges or evidence, etc, may well be reasonable. But assumptions specifically about racial, class, religious or whatever bias only serve to reinforce those forms of bigotry.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Framed that way, I understand and to a degree agree with that sentiment.

But I'm okay with, "We're very unlikely to get a conviction, but let's file anyway because the evidence is overwhelming and we would get a conviction if this county wasn't so racists that they will ignore it."

I don't think anyone has said anything to indicate they would.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I'm not sure how I could be more clear that stating in virtually every post that I believe the whole process should be taken out of the hands of the related (in the politically symbiotic way) persons and run by an independent person. I have not always said, but I believe that another jurisdiction close enough to not be hard to get to and from for witnesses and juror, but not so close as to generate the response that Ferguson pulled off so beautifully. I know that in one of my last three posts I have specifically stated that, if the independent body or person decides there is no case, there should be no indictment.

But don't let what I actually say get in the way of your making a point.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Exactly.

Exactly.

TM

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

From a traditional liberal perspective. But hey, if the world has moved on to one where we trust prosecutors not to abuse their power with political point-scoring, but we DON’T trust juries because they are too frequently unreasonable in the number of ACQUITTALS they issue, then we really do seem to be living in different worlds. I see strong incentives for prosecutors to bring splashy charges with no prospect of conviction, and I don’t see a practical way to carve out cops without violating the Equal Protection Clause, so I'm unenthusiastic about encouraging prosecutors to bring charges they don’t think will result in conviction.

And BTW, my position “empowers” racists, rapists and other shitbags no more than the reasonable doubt standard or the requirement of unanimous juries, so if being in favor of people getting away with crimes when certain conditions aren’t met means I’ve empowered a bit of evil in the world, then I’m guilty. But that does not convince me we should do as you propose. I think those things hold back a greater evil, which is why we tolerate them. Or, at least, I do. Maybe someone out there thinks we should alter the standard of proof or have non-unanimous juries in special cases where there have been unjust acquittals. If so, I disagree with them, too.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

You are doing a clever dance. I don't think anyone has argued what you are pretending we are. What you are doing is taking a strong case and defining it as weak based on the unreasonable actions of any particular jury pool. No one here will argue that prosecutors should take a weak case, based on the evidence, to trial to prove a point or as a form of punishment. You know that. The danger of a flood of pointless trials that you are ascribing to that scenario does.not.exist when the evidence of a crime is overwhelming and the jury pool is completely unreasonable.

But it sure sounds like you wish it did.

TM

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Perhaps, and it depends why the case is weak. For example, I can imagine supporting a prosecutor who decides to prosecute more rape cases because she thinks it will deter crime and make other victims more likely to come forward, even though in her experience juries often find reasons to acquit. I suspect you would support that as well. Do I think this because rapists are bad? Well, of course, but that's hardly all of it.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I think those incentives are already in place and unchanged in the scenarios we're talking about.

I also don't see the traditionally victimized as the most likely targets of those scenarios (Sheriff Joe aside) nor do I think they aren't already getting charged and convicted on those weak cases already, perhaps in part because the "ethical" prosecutor is allowed to consider the fact that his county hates people from "Mexico."*


* El Salvador.

Where is the equal protection issue with, for example, setting up a division of the state attorney general's office to handle all cop prosecutions?

And I think why they think they won't get a conviction matters.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Maybe more price fixing cases, with more jail sentences, because he thinks it will help get the attention of others who otherwise may not think much about the illegality of the deal they reached with Mortimer on the back 9 after the annual trade association meeting?

Seems like I mighta read something about that kind of prosecutorial thinking once or twice.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Good fucking grief.

In your world and the real world, prosecutors already have the ability to bring cases for political point-scoring reasons. We are not arguing about whether or not they should be able to do so. What we are arguing about is whether they should go through with a trial in cases where the evidence of criminality is overwhelming, but they don't think the jury pool of isolated, privileged, scared white people would convict a cop of anything, even murder. If the evidence is clear, you're worried about the political grandstanding? That's your issue? How about whether cops should be treated like everyone else by our officials and justice system? How about whether the victims are represented by the people? Why the fuck are you so concerned with grandstanding in the situation where the evidence is clear but the conviction might not be because the jury is made up of assholes? Please explain.

Bullshit. Cops and prosecutors work hand-in-hand. Having a different prosecutor handle cases where cops are the defendants is not a violation of the equal protection clause. You are absolutely full of shit.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

First correct thing you've said all day. Except the "certain conditions" part of that sentence is the PB board-equivalent of "yada yada yada."

Translation: "Hey! Look over there!" Stick and move. Stick and move.

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.

TM

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

There are some prosecutorial decisions which can be expected to have a wider impact, and there are some that won't. I wasn't thinking about price-fixing, but I think a lot of companies and executives would be deterred by the threat of a trial, even followed by an acquittal.