Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Sam]

The case appears to have been dismissed at arraignment, just like now. The case was dismissed then because the DA's office used prosecutorial discretion and declined to prosecute, just like now. The judge then, as virtually all judges do, accepted that decision.

--Sam

A judge can't force a prosecutor to file charges, but he can refuse a request to dismiss charges that have already been filed.

Again, these are completely different scenarios, and your attempt to equate the two is either ignorant, or disingenuous.

[Cow Poke]

The case appears to have been dismissed at arraignment, just like now. The case was dismissed then because the DA's office used prosecutorial discretion and declined to prosecute, just like now. The judge then, as virtually all judges do, accepted that decision.

--Sam

Were there whole categories of crimes that the DA wouldn't prosecute "just like now"?

[Cow Poke]

And did they have an activist social justice warrior for a DA who announced 15 categories of crimes she wouldn't prosecute "just like now"?

[Mountain Man]

it is highly unlikely that a judge would do so when the request comes from the prosecution though. After all, the prosecution is the one who has to prosecute the case.

But I don't find it to be unconstitutional as Sam claimed. Once it is in the court system, the Judge is the guy in charge. The DA works for the Justice system just like the Judge does, so this separation nonsense doesn't work. Attorneys are subordinate to Judges.

I agree that this situation is unusual, but, as you say, it's not unconstitutional.

[Sam]

Were there whole categories of crimes that the DA wouldn't prosecute "just like now"?

Another distinction that doesn't actually demonstrate a difference. The DA, like others before her, is declining to prosecute on the basis of freedom of speech and assembly.

If the argument is that Judge Sinnot should be using this case and the legal system to make a political point against the DA, well, that's gross misconduct.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Another distinction that doesn't actually demonstrate a difference. The DA, like others before her, is declining to prosecute on the basis of freedom of speech and assembly.

Sam, I honestly don't believe you are this ignorant -- you're totally ignoring the fact that this DA has actually announced she would not prosecute shoplifting and trespassing, among other categories of crimes. She is an activist social justice warrior. That's not on the basis of "freedom of speech and assembly". She has an activist agenda.

If the argument is that Judge Sinnot should be using this case and the legal system to make a political point against the DA, well, that's gross misconduct.

--Sam

It looks to me like the judge is somewhat of an ass -- but I'm not so blind as to only look at his misconduct. Open your eyes, Sam - this DA is a train wreck.

[Mountain Man]

The case appears to have been dismissed at arraignment, just like now. The case was dismissed then because the DA's office used prosecutorial discretion and declined to prosecute, just like now. The judge then, as virtually all judges do, accepted that decision.

--Sam

"We're not pressing charges because it was a clear case of self-defense, and no crime was committed."

"We want to dismiss charges because even though a crime was clearly committed, we don't feel like enforcing certain laws."

You're right, that's totally the same.

[Sam]

There's that inside privileged information again. You must be really tight with the Boston DA.

Or you're demonstrating, again, the jackboot authoritarian tendency of deciding who's guilty and who's not before they've even stepped three feet into a courtroom.

--Sam

"We're not pressing charges because it was a clear case of self-defense, and no crime was committed."

"We want to dismiss charges because even though a crime was clearly committed, we don't feel like enforcing certain law.s"

You're right, that's totally the same.

[Cow Poke]

Or you're demonstrating, again, the jackboot authoritarian tendency of deciding who's guilty and who's not before they've even stepped three feet into a courtroom.

--Sam

Why are you so one-sided on this, Sam? This didn't happen in a vacuum - it was part and parcel of the social justice crap that the DA had announced in not prosecuting whole categories of crimes. I'm not defending the judge's actions - he sounds like a jackass. But you keep ignoring the fact that the whole 'justice system' in Bostom is screwed up, and the DA is doing her part to make it worse.

[Sam]

Sam, I honestly don't believe you are this ignorant -- you're totally ignoring the fact that this DA has actually announced she would not prosecute shoplifting and trespassing, among other categories of crimes. She is an activist social justice warrior. That's not on the basis of "freedom of speech and assembly". She has an activist agenda.

It looks to me like the judge is somewhat of an ass -- but I'm not so blind as to only look at his misconduct. Open your eyes, Sam - this DA is a train wreck.

You're trying to find fault in this case with the "ass" judge and the "activist" DA. But there's no evidence that either is using a political agenda in this specific case. The only relevant questions are whether the prosecutor has discretionary authority and whether a judge can overrule that authority without justification.

Whether the DA is a "train wreck" or not remains to be seen. And the DA did not announce that shoplifting and trespassing would not be prosecuted, only that certain categories and acts would not. The DA, for example, might decline to press criminal charges against a child stealing a pack of gum or a homeless woman stealing a bar of deodorant - but might decide to press charges if the child continued to steal gum or the woman had a record of theft.

--Sam

[Sparko]

There's that inside privileged information again. You must be really tight with the Boston DA.

Or you're demonstrating, again, the jackboot authoritarian tendency of deciding who's guilty and who's not before they've even stepped three feet into a courtroom.

--Sam

No it's not. This is exactly what happened and the DA isn't being shy about it. The police arrested them for breaking the law and she wants the charges dropped because she has already said she won't prosecute certain crimes. No "inside, privileged information"

In the other case Sinnot was not charged at all. It was self-defense.

[Mountain Man]

There's that inside privileged information again.

It's not "inside privileged information" when the DA has openly said that she will not enforce certain laws.

Seriously, are you really this dense?

[Sam]

Why are you so one-sided on this, Sam? This didn't happen in a vacuum - it was part and parcel of the social justice crap that the DA had announced in not prosecuting whole categories of crimes. I'm not defending the judge's actions - he sounds like a jackass. But you keep ignoring the fact that the whole 'justice system' in Bostom is screwed up, and the DA is doing her part to make it worse.

As I wrote earlier, there is evidence to suggest that this kind of prosecutorial discretion ends ineffective and costly incarcerations that contribute to the legal system being clogged up with petty offenses.

It's not that I'm being one-sided about the larger question but that you're assuming it's a bad thing when not only is that a contested assumption, it's standing on the wrong side of the evidence.

Whether or not it works in Boston, we'll have to see. But it's no more a policing and prosecutorial experiment than the decision to level aggressive policing and prosecution against a city in the past.

--Sam

[Sparko]

You're trying to find fault in this case with the "ass" judge and the "activist" DA. But there's no evidence that either is using a political agenda in this specific case. The only relevant questions are whether the prosecutor has discretionary authority and whether a judge can overrule that authority without justification.

Whether the DA is a "train wreck" or not remains to be seen. And the DA did not announce that shoplifting and trespassing would not be prosecuted, only that certain categories and acts would not. The DA, for example, might decline to press criminal charges against a child stealing a pack of gum or a homeless woman stealing a bar of deodorant - but might decide to press charges if the child continued to steal gum or the woman had a record of theft.

--Sam

I gave you the list Sam. "Some active reading might be in order."

Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting:


Trespassing
Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
Larceny under $250
Disorderly conduct
Disturbing the peace
Receiving stolen property
Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
Wanton or malicious destruction of property
Threats – excluding domestic violence
Minor in possession of alcohol
Drug possession
Drug possession with intent to distribute
A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory,

This means that someone can shoplift with impunity or commit larceny up to $250.

[Cow Poke]

As I wrote earlier, there is evidence to suggest that this kind of prosecutorial discretion ends ineffective and costly incarcerations that contribute to the legal system being clogged up with petty offenses.

TOTALLY ignoring her jackass statement that she will not prosecute even SHOPLIFTING.

It's not that I'm being one-sided about the larger question

Yes, you are - you're totally ignoring it.

but that you're assuming it's a bad thing when not only is that a contested assumption, it's standing on the wrong side of the evidence.

Yeah, telling the public that you're not going to prosecute certain crimes will bring about peace and civility and order.

Whether or not it works in Boston, we'll have to see. But it's no more a policing and prosecutorial experiment than the decision to level aggressive policing and prosecution against a city in the past.

--Sam

I honestly believe you're blind to the bigger picture, Sam. This is like the broken windows theory on steroids.