Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Proof would be hard"? This analysis is a tragedy. You don't decide whether to prosecute - an act which would potentially due irreparable damage to both the accused and accuser - based on "whether we can shoehorn the facts into the statutory description of an offense." "We'll make new law!" or "Let's try a novel claim" or "Let's use this case to get a decision defining [insert offense]" is the most offensive basis for any legal claim. The prosecutor's primary concern should be doing what's right. In almost every instance, that is only prosecuting where there is overwhelming proof a crime that easily falls within the statute at issue has been committed.
|
Or, alternately, where there is a minimal proof of a minor crime that carries enormous penalties so you can try to pressure the defendant into cooperating against the bigger fish.
Sorry. Just reminiscing about my criminal defense days. I had a drug case I will never forget. Such horseshit.
You are obviously right about this "rape" case. I'm the one who called it "rape," but I was talking about her perspective and I hadn't read the part about her basically not ever telling him that it wasn't okay to fuck her awake. It's not even a close call as to whether you could, or should, prosecute this.
