Some thoughts on overcharging defendants. The Zimmerman case looks a lot like that to me. I like the idea of banning prosecutors from running for political office for five years after their last prosecution. It would have kept a lot of lousy politicians out of office (a former governor of New York comes to mind) and reduce grandstanding.
10 thoughts on “Balancing The Scale For Prosecutors”
Comments are closed.
But would have also kept some excellent politicians out of office (a former mayor of New York comes to mind…)
In the win column: no Gov. Chris Christie or MF Global. In the loss column: more Gov. Jon Corzine.
You mean the soon to be a conviceted felon Jon Corzine? Are you really enough of a party line kool-ade drinker to regret losing him?
Might have been funnier to have seen him frog-marched out of the NJ Governor’s Mansion I will admit.
Try reading my comment again.
Grand juries are one of the few “bill of rights” rights, like the second amendment, that don’t enjoy full 14th amendment incorporation, unlike say, the abortion right or the first amendment.
A requirement that every charge be brought by a grand jury would be a significant step in the right direction. As a practical matter, you would have many fewer charges if every charge required a grand jury indictment, and that’s even if the grand jurors were complete tools for the prosecutor, because each indictment would require much more time and effort to produce.
Another step would be to have Grand Jury prosecutors be from a separate office than the office which actually effects the prosecution and seeks the conviction. This would allow a much more objective reading of the facts both by the grand jury prosecutor and the grand jury since the grand jury prosecutor would not be incentivised by the need for a conviction but rather by the need for a credible prospect for prosecution.
Grand juries are like habeas corpus — a simple little thing that prevents so much would-be tyranny.
The not running for another office is not really workable, as the State Attorney still has the ability to run for re-election. Grand juries are famous for being “able to indict a ham sandwich” if the prosecutor wants them to, simply because they control what information gets to the jury.
The real problem is that the majority of people want to be tough on crime, and so will elect officials in all branches of government that promise to be tough on crime. That means higher mandatory minimum sentences, more things criminalized and more prosecutions.
So, we’ve set up a system biased towards throwing the book at “bad” people. That system is hard to stop when a “good” person is being targeted. (Not that I particularly think Zimmerman is good – an unarmed kid is dead, after all.)
No, the solution to overcharging is to recognize that each case is different, and a simple “lock everybody up and throw away the key” approach doesn’t work.
How about the white people that have been beat down because the left blamed this on white people not liking blacks, were they good or bad? Did they deserve the beat downs for the collective sins real and imagined? Are the race agitators still claiming Zimmerman was white and profiled Trayvon?
Does the left realize their race mongering actually effects people, or is it intentional?
Except in this case, it’s simple abuse by a rogue prosecutor (a la Nifong in Duke).
Add another type of verdict to the pool.
Guilty. Not Guilty. Laughable.
If the verdict is laughable, revoke the prosecutor’s special immunity to civil suits.
It will -not- happen often. It won’t stop everything – but it would impede the -pure- grandstanding. Which, really, is all you actually want stopped.