Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Cow Poke]

on a case by case basis - depending on extenuating circumstances, not on ignoring the law altogether.

What if a prosecutor said, "We will no longer prosecute any burglaries, rapes or murders"

What would you be saying in that case?

And that's from whence this all came -- from a social justice platform of "we're going to decide whole categories of crimes we won't prosecute", when the duty of the DA is to uphold and enforce the laws on the books.

The real remedy would be to have the proper authorities decodify the crimes they don't want prosecuted.

This DA is complaining that the judge is not honoring 'separation of powers', while she's doing exactly that - not honoring separation of powers.

[Cow Poke]

The State can, at any time, decide not to continue with charges.

From the reporting I've seen, I can't even tell if this happened after or during arraignment. But it doesn't matter. If the prosecution decides a minute before trial that it won't prosecute, it can make that decision. And absent some extraordinary showing of injustice, a judge doesn't have the authority to override.

--Sam

She's being a hypocrite.

[Sparko]

Here is her list of crimes to be ignored:

----

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, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors.

Note: this is essentially already happening for drug possession cases in Roxbury and Dorchester District Court.

https://rollins4da.com/policy/charges-to-be-declined/

--
So basically you can use and sell drugs, steal up to $250, maliciously destroy property, threaten anyone you want as long as it isn't your spouse, shoplift, receive stolen property, etc, and not have to worry about being arrested.

[Sam]

And that's from whence this all came -- from a social justice platform of "we're going to decide whole categories of crimes we won't prosecute", when the duty of the DA is to uphold and enforce the laws on the books.

The real remedy would be to have the proper authorities decodify the crimes they don't want prosecuted.

This DA is complaining that the judge is not honoring 'separation of powers', while she's doing exactly that - not honoring separation of powers.

Big, big difference between an elected prosecutor saying "Prosecution of minor offenses is putting a large, undue strain on the state and not serving the public interest" and a judge -- a judge! -- saying "No, you better be prosecuting all these people".

There is, in other words, a legitimate separations argument to make regarding the creation and execution of criminal codes. Not so legitimate when a judge, whose duty is to be an independent arbiter of fact and truth, demands prosecutions.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Here is her list of crimes to be ignored:

----

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, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors.

Note: this is essentially already happening for drug possession cases in Roxbury and Dorchester District Court.

https://rollins4da.com/policy/charges-to-be-declined/

--
So basically you can use and sell drugs, steal up to $250, maliciously destroy property, threaten anyone you want as long as it isn't your spouse, shoplift, receive stolen property, etc, and not have to worry about being arrested.

EGGzackly - social justice warrior crap on parade. Refusal to prosecute crimes already on the books - which is a violation of the very separation of powers she's whining about.

[Sam]

Not a violation. If you're arguing that prosecutors have to aggressively prosecute every law on the books, you're arguing against the separation of powers.

Many, if not all, of the above-listed crimes are better suited to civil infractions with community service and restitution, especially for low-level first time offenders. The habit of locking as many people in jail as can be fit and then building more jails is not effective.

And, of course, there are studies showing exactly that.

--Sam

EGGzackly - social justice warrior crap on parade. Refusal to prosecute crimes already on the books - which is a violation of the very separation of powers she's whining about.

[Cow Poke]

Big, big difference between an elected prosecutor saying "Prosecution of minor offenses is putting a large, undue strain on the state and not serving the public interest" and a judge -- a judge! -- saying "No, you better be prosecuting all these people".

She's a hypocrite.

There is, in other words, a legitimate separations argument to make regarding the creation and execution of criminal codes. Not so legitimate when a judge, whose duty is to be an independent arbiter of fact and truth, demands prosecutions.

--Sam

No, an officer of the court is sworn to uphold the laws, not ignore them.

In your bad example of the police officer, it wouldn't just be 'exercising discretion in enforcing speed', it would be deciding that, for example, "we're not going to enforce speeding at all".

[Cow Poke]

Not a violation. If you're arguing that prosecutors have to aggressively prosecute every law on the books, you're arguing against the separation of powers.

I never said any such thing, Sam, and this is why I don't look forward to discussing anything with you.

Many, if not all, of the above-listed crimes are better suited to civil infractions with community service and restitution, especially for low-level first time offenders. The habit of locking as many people in jail as can be fit and then building more jails is not effective.

And, of course, there are studies showing exactly that.

--Sam

Then the proper action would be to modify the actual laws, not for some social justice warrior to take it upon herself to be the judge of which laws were going to be enforced.

It's a clear and blatant abuse of the system, which is exactly what she's complaining about regarding the judge.

[Sam]

She's a hypocrite.

No, an officer of the court is sworn to uphold the laws, not ignore them.

In your bad example of the police officer, it wouldn't just be 'exercising discretion in enforcing speed', it would be deciding that, for example, "we're not going to enforce speeding at all".

It would be "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, we're not going to bust people for driving 5 mph over the speed limit", which is what happens routinely.

The DA isn't declining to pursue criminal prosecutions for all theft or all breaking and entering, just like LEOs aren't declining to issue any speeding tickets.

But if folks don't approve, that's what the vote is for. It's not for a judge to break impartiality and decide who's gonna get prosecuted.

--Sam

[Sam]

If you're accusing her of violating the separation of powers by "refusing to to prosecute crimes already on the books", I'm afraid I'm not sure how I misrepresented your argument.

--Sam

I never said any such thing, Sam, and this is why I don't look forward to discussing anything with you.



Then the proper action would be to modify the actual laws, not for some social justice warrior to take it upon herself to be the judge of which laws were going to be enforced.

It's a clear and blatant abuse of the system, which is exactly what she's complaining about regarding the judge.

[Cow Poke]

It would be "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, we're not going to bust people for driving 5 mph over the speed limit", which is what happens routinely.

That's a "case by case" basis - it is NOT a decision not to prosecute all cases under a certain threshold, or ignoring laws altogether.

The DA isn't declining to pursue criminal prosecutions for all theft or all breaking and entering, just like LEOs aren't declining to issue any speeding tickets.

She is taking it upon herself which laws to ignore - not just exercise case by case discretion.

She is setting up a system whereby the police are expected not even to make arrests, knowing that their time will be wasted. She is not the police commissioner, mayor, judge or city council.

But if folks don't approve, that's what the vote is for. It's not for a judge to break impartiality and decide who's gonna get prosecuted.

--Sam

And I never excused the judge -- I'm just pointing out that she's doing the same thing, and his actions are, apparently, in response to her abuse of power.

[Cow Poke]

If you're accusing her of violating the separation of powers by "refusing to to prosecute crimes already on the books", I'm afraid I'm not sure how I misrepresented your argument.

--Sam

Because, in your head, I'm sure you think you're right.

[Sam]

Because, in your head, I'm sure you think you're right.

Well, that's honestly what I think a reasonable parsing of the sentence leads to. But we can be friendly about it and recognize that we're just not seeing the same thing as written.

--Sam

[Sparko]

Big, big difference between an elected prosecutor saying "Prosecution of minor offenses is putting a large, undue strain on the state and not serving the public interest" and a judge -- a judge! -- saying "No, you better be prosecuting all these people".

There is, in other words, a legitimate separations argument to make regarding the creation and execution of criminal codes. Not so legitimate when a judge, whose duty is to be an independent arbiter of fact and truth, demands prosecutions.

--Sam

If she wasn't prosecuting them, how did they end up in front of the judge in the first place? Why weren't they just let go from the police station?

There is more going on here than what the news articles are saying.

[Cow Poke]

Well, that's honestly what I think a reasonable parsing of the sentence leads to. But we can be friendly about it and recognize that we're just not seeing the same thing as written.

--Sam

Here's the process, Sam....

Police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, and are schooled in the codified ordinances of the jurisdictions they represent.
They can make arrests based on those laws, but if they know the DA is not going to prosecute, it's a waste of their time, and it puts them in a bad position when they have to explain to a complainant "well, yes, that's illegal for somebody to steal a bunch of stuff from your store, but the DA isn't going to prosecute, so it's a waste of my time to make the arrest".

It doesn't take long for the criminals to know what the laws are, and what they can get away with.

The DA, in this situation, is taking it upon herself to decide which laws get prosecuted, and this can only lead to a downward spiral of civil conduct.
There's a great difference between showing some compassion or understanding on a case by case basis, and tossing out specific laws entirely.

She has published a list of crimes that won't be prosecuted.
That is an open invitation for those crimes to be committed, and to further endanger the public.

That cannot be a good thing. If the laws are unjust, then it's up to the local jurisdiction to amend or decodify them - that's not her job.