re: Prosecutorial Misconduct Reform

quote:

---

By the letter of the law all of those prosecutions are fair game, just like you said.

---

Nope. I said nothing about any specific prosecution.

All I’m doing is pointing out how stupid a “public benefit” showing inherently is.

quote:

---

am curious how you think those prosecution cases inherently benefit the public.

---

I have no idea nor do I care. Whether any prosecution “benefits the public” according to some made up standard is also totally irrelevant and unworkable legallly.

You’re bitching about prosecutorial discretion and arguable constitutional violations. Neither of those ills are righted by making up some fairy tale standard that will be inherently subjective, only lead to more injustice, and overly burden legitimate prosecutions (which account for the overwhelming body of cases and already have a hand tied behind them)

quote:

---

All I’m doing is pointing out how stupid a “public benefit” showing inherently is.

---

We show mens rea to be an element in all sorts of prosecution. Is that more or less subjective?

quote:

---

All I’m doing is pointing out how stupid a “public benefit” showing inherently is.

---

By stipulating all legislation benefits the public. Brilliant.

quote:

---

You’re bitching about prosecutorial discretion and arguable constitutional violations. Neither of those ills are righted by making up some fairy tale standard that will be inherently subjective and only lead to more injustice.

---

I tend to think less prosecution is less of an ill than more prosecution. Like I said originally this could also be solved by jury nullification which is effectively the same thing.

Go ahead and explain how this standard would be met.

quote:

---

it shouldn't be a big burden to convince a jury that said prosecution benefits the public.

---

Right. Restating the idea doesn’t answer my question.

How is that representation made? What are the elements the prosecution needs to show? What standard is the jury holding them to?

quote:

---

There's no shortage of people who get prosecuted on technicalities that serve no basis to public good. Or do you think all prosecutions are inherently benefitting society too?

---

I’ve never said that once with regard to prosecutions. All I’m saying is that your idea sucks.

quote:

---

I could go into how mens rea elements get drafted into law, and do something similar, but an easier way is to give the jury the option to effectively veto the prosecution via jury nullification.

---

And I have a goldfish, but I thought we were discussing the topic. I don’t need you to give me the history of mens rea or explain what jury nullification is. We’re talking about your proposal that a “public benefit” be shown for prosecution.

Are you going to answer the question or not?