They had been placed on administrative leave after refusing to abandon the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams. “We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” they wrote.
Well, the system is that they go hard after convictions, and there’s a counterbalancing force on the other side that goes hard after acquittals. It’s not really a wrong system, it is the best design we’ve come up with. There are horrible inequities in how it gets applied, but it’s mostly a matter of (1) laws getting made in a way that perverts justice on behalf of the rich (2) the prosecution getting the full resources it needs to go hard in 100% of cases, and the defense only getting those resources if the client is wealthy and otherwise “lol good luck sucker.”
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me? (I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to).
The problem isn’t them arguing to the best of their ability that the accused is guilty. The problem is trying to stack so many years of prison into the charge that the accused pleads out because it’s safer to serve 5 years for something you didn’t do than risk 20 years trying to prove your innocence. That’s not justice.
Yeah. That’s one of the big inequities built into the system. You basically have to have tons of resources for a good lawyer, and an ironclad way to prove your innocence, and also be willing to roll the dice that you won’t get fucked for life anyway just because you got unlucky in the trial. If you don’t have all three of those things, you’re fucked from the start even if you didn’t do anything.
Well, the system is that they go hard after convictions, and there’s a counterbalancing force on the other side that goes hard after acquittals. It’s not really a wrong system, it is the best design we’ve come up with. There are horrible inequities in how it gets applied, but it’s mostly a matter of (1) laws getting made in a way that perverts justice on behalf of the rich (2) the prosecution getting the full resources it needs to go hard in 100% of cases, and the defense only getting those resources if the client is wealthy and otherwise “lol good luck sucker.”
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
Why are you lecturing me? What’s my point #2 say up in the parent comment?
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
What’s my point #2 say, up in the parent comment?
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me? (I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to).
The problem isn’t them arguing to the best of their ability that the accused is guilty. The problem is trying to stack so many years of prison into the charge that the accused pleads out because it’s safer to serve 5 years for something you didn’t do than risk 20 years trying to prove your innocence. That’s not justice.
Yeah. That’s one of the big inequities built into the system. You basically have to have tons of resources for a good lawyer, and an ironclad way to prove your innocence, and also be willing to roll the dice that you won’t get fucked for life anyway just because you got unlucky in the trial. If you don’t have all three of those things, you’re fucked from the start even if you didn’t do anything.