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.
|
Read the bit after "but."
