- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DA’s should be held accountable
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
They can be held accountable through the voting process. What you're talking about is 3rd world stupidity
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:24 pm to Powerman
You know you have no sane or intelligent response, you just want to troll.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:24 pm to Powerman
quote:
They can be held accountable through the voting process. What you're talking about is 3rd world stupidity
No, third world stupidity is what you get when some of these idiots are allowed to run rampant because of the letter beside their name on the ballot.
Ron DeSantis getting rid of Andrew Warren is a good example of how to do things the right way.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:24 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
DeSantis sa8d he will prosecute DA'S that refuse to follow the law.
Clearly something only a racist would do.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I disagree completely.
It isn't about an individual's personal satisfaction. They're not doing their job according to the law. I probably wouldn't throw everyone in jail, but they shouldn't be immune from consequences up to and including criminal sanctions in severe cases.
As soon as we start talking about throwing people in jail and taking away their law license for making a bad judgment call on a plea deal, we will have every single prosecutor in the country refusing to ever make a plea deal or ever decline to prosecute any case brought to them by the police department. There will be no exercise of discretion whatsoever
The cost of running such a system would be incalculable. further, I think that fewer criminals would end up in prison, because every prosecutor would feel compelled to swing for the fences on the highest possible charge, rather than taking those reliable singles and doubles on plea deals and lesser charges. See my original post.
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Setting the expectation for someone to do their job isn't an overcorrection.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:How about just suing them (including personal assets) for 7-to-9 digits?
As soon as we start talking about throwing people in jail and taking away their law license for making a bad judgment call on a plea deal
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
There will be no exercise of discretion whatsoever. The cost of running such a system would be incalculable.
Cost? What about the incalculable cost to the secondary victims of recidivism from underprosecition? Does society see a way that those preventable injustices get repaid?
I do see it from your perspective though. Look at Healthcare. We all pay for defensive medicine due to physicians being worried about getting sued.
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As soon as we start talking about throwing people in jail and taking away their law license for making a bad judgment call on a plea deal
"They're not doing their job according to the law."
quote:
There will be no exercise of discretion whatsoever
The answer isn't complete autonomy. Being elected doesn't make one infallible or unaccountable.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:32 pm to Crimson
you sound like a democrat. You seem to want a world with no risk, no matter the cost of reaching that point.
POST EDIT
I am glad that you now see the potential problems (unintended consequences) of the system proposed by the OP.
POST EDIT
I am glad that you now see the potential problems (unintended consequences) of the system proposed by the OP.
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:34 pm to AggieHank86
I'm not a Democrat. Worst insult in the world.
I want justice and prosecution for crimes committed. Our cities are lawless and underprosecution removes the deterrence for further crime.
I want justice and prosecution for crimes committed. Our cities are lawless and underprosecution removes the deterrence for further crime.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:38 pm to Crimson
quote:
You seem to want a world with no risk, no matter the cost of reaching that point.
This is reductio ad absurdum and you know it.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:44 pm to Masterag
quote:
DA’s should be held accountable
For crimes committed by people they refused to prosecute. We need to pass state and federal laws where if someone they refused to prosecute or let off with a leaser penalty and commits a violent crime, the DA should be disbarred for 10 years and spend at least 5 in prison dependent on the crime.
We need to hold "mostly peaceful" protests outside their homes and the homes of their supporters
You'll never have any accountability any other way
Posted on 9/29/22 at 6:55 pm to Crimson
quote:
reductio ad absurdum
quote:Call it a one-time expenditure of $25 billion to build the necessary additional courtrooms across the country and another $15 billion per year to staff and run them.
Cost
Then add the extra district attorneys. Let’s be conservative and say one assistant district attorney per court, +2 support personnel. The cost there is another 8 billion per year
VERY rough estimate (and probably low by as much as 50 to 100%), but does that seem like a worthwhile expenditure to avoid a few hundred major felonies by recidivists?
And that does not take into account the crimes that will be committed by the criminals who get tried but not convicted because DAs are afraid to plea bargain. those folks are back on the street committing crimes immediately, rather than 3 to 5 years down the line as would be the case if the DA we’re not afraid to enter into a plea bargain. Personally, I think there would be about a net balance of those cases against the recidivists. Meaning of the net reduction in crime will essentially be zero, at quadruple the cost.
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:08 pm to Masterag
Brah, our system is nothing more than lawyers protecting lawyers. The sooner you come to grip with that fact the sooner you can stop thinking your ire means anything. And, you can sleep a little better at night.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:13 pm to Masterag
Blatant disresepct for the law is pure negligence!
Corrupt DAs should be put in one big jail cell with SOROS!
Corrupt DAs should be put in one big jail cell with SOROS!
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:46 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Setting the expectation for someone to do their job isn't an overcorrection.
You know that isn’t what was proposed.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:50 pm to cwill
quote:
You know that isn’t what was proposed.
There's discussion to be had from:
quote:
DA’s should be held accountable
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:50 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You’ll either have no DAs or everyone in jail.
Sounds like you are saying DA's cant be trusted to get it right
Posted on 9/29/22 at 7:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The malpractice threat
Going to jail 5 years if you declined to prosecute and something happens is a helluva malpractice threat. This will lead to more gov waste through unnecessary prosecutions driven by this “malpractice threat” and will probably result in more innocents in jail. It’s just a stupid overcorrection.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News