- 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: Prosecutorial Misconduct Reform
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:25 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Who said that?
quote:
The simple fact that the behavior is prohibited by law passed by a legislature inherently means that preventing said behavior is a benefit to the public.
By the letter of the law all of those prosecutions are fair game, just like you said.
I am curious how you think those prosecution cases inherently benefit the public.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Not sure what that is.
the fairy tale showing
I'd certainly not go so far as to suggest all legislation serves the public good.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:30 pm to NYNolaguy1
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)
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not sure what that is.
The other posters fantasy “public benefit” showing that he wants to saddle prosecutors with.
quote:
I'd certainly not go so far as to suggest all legislation serves the public good.
Neither would I. But what it does inherently do is reflect the public’s will. Crimes are crimes because the public made them crimes. Making up some candy land standard to show that again in court is redundant and stupid.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:34 pm to Indefatigable
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.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
No, you just oppose political prosecutions like any sane person.
Your solution sucks though, and is unworkable.
Your solution sucks though, and is unworkable.
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But what it does inherently do is reflect the public’s will.
Man, you sure you don't want some ocean front property in Oklahoma? It looks over the Indian ocean.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:38 pm to NYNolaguy1
Go ahead and explain how this standard would be met.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Go ahead and explain how this standard would be met.
If a prosecutor can show a defendant had mens rea to commit a crime, it shouldn't be a big burden to convince a jury that said prosecution benefits the public.
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?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:49 pm to NYNolaguy1
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.
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
How is that representation made? What are the elements the prosecution needs to show? What standard is the jury holding them to?
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.
New Hampshire just passed something similar to this as a part of standard jury instructions for all criminal proceedings.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 2:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
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?
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 1/20/24 at 2:30 pm to Indefatigable
If it were up to me I would put it as standard boiler plate jury insutructions that in addition to the stated elements of whatever crime the defendant is accused of that the jury has the option not to convict if they believe the verdict would be unjust.
Not sure if I can get more specific than that.
Not sure if I can get more specific than that.
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 2:33 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News