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.
At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree.
Good so far.
Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.
Nope! I actually completely agree with you on this. I touched on it a tiny bit up above, but to expand on it; Yes, absolutely, there are prosecutors who try at all costs to get a conviction even if they completely think the sentence is wildly harsh and punitive, or that the defendant is innocent or the law / system is wrong, or whatnot. Fuck those people. On that we actually 100% agree.
There are clearly prosecutors on the other side of that. We’re talking under a post where some prosecutors were asked to pervert the course of justice and they said “Nope fuck that we quit.” Prosecutors drop charges all the time because it seems like the charges are unwarranted. Often these kind of “trying to set right the wrongful conviction” stories include modern day prosecutors arguing super-strongly in favor of the defendant that their office convicted years before. That cop who broke the elderly Japanese man’s neck not long ago, the state prosecutor was the one that charged him with a felony. And so on.
I feel like we probably disagree quite a lot about how often the prosecutors are the bad type as opposed to the good type, and that’s why we view the whole system so differently. That’s all good, we can talk about it. That conversation might be enlightening for both of us.
See? Progress. Imagine if instead of just lobbing a baby-seal analogy at me when the exact same thing in a “just following orders” one hadn’t worked, repeating back to me things I’d already argued to you as if that was somehow productive, you’d started out by reading my argument and summarizing it back to me to see if you’d understood it completely, maybe asked questions about it, tried to have a conversation on that level. If you’d done that without me having to spend a bunch of messages being super condescending to you and forcing you into a corner where you had to do it, we could have saved some time.
I was careless in my phrasing. By saying “not breaking the rules,” I was meaning to encompass any kind of maliciousness in prosecution even if it is allowed under “the rules.” Which, in the current system, it often is, it would have been better for me to make that clear.
Good so far.
Nope! I actually completely agree with you on this. I touched on it a tiny bit up above, but to expand on it; Yes, absolutely, there are prosecutors who try at all costs to get a conviction even if they completely think the sentence is wildly harsh and punitive, or that the defendant is innocent or the law / system is wrong, or whatnot. Fuck those people. On that we actually 100% agree.
There are clearly prosecutors on the other side of that. We’re talking under a post where some prosecutors were asked to pervert the course of justice and they said “Nope fuck that we quit.” Prosecutors drop charges all the time because it seems like the charges are unwarranted. Often these kind of “trying to set right the wrongful conviction” stories include modern day prosecutors arguing super-strongly in favor of the defendant that their office convicted years before. That cop who broke the elderly Japanese man’s neck not long ago, the state prosecutor was the one that charged him with a felony. And so on.
I feel like we probably disagree quite a lot about how often the prosecutors are the bad type as opposed to the good type, and that’s why we view the whole system so differently. That’s all good, we can talk about it. That conversation might be enlightening for both of us.
See? Progress. Imagine if instead of just lobbing a baby-seal analogy at me when the exact same thing in a “just following orders” one hadn’t worked, repeating back to me things I’d already argued to you as if that was somehow productive, you’d started out by reading my argument and summarizing it back to me to see if you’d understood it completely, maybe asked questions about it, tried to have a conversation on that level. If you’d done that without me having to spend a bunch of messages being super condescending to you and forcing you into a corner where you had to do it, we could have saved some time.
So, what did you mean by this?
I was careless in my phrasing. By saying “not breaking the rules,” I was meaning to encompass any kind of maliciousness in prosecution even if it is allowed under “the rules.” Which, in the current system, it often is, it would have been better for me to make that clear.
That’s why I specifically quoted that part, so if I was misunderstanding you, you could have corrected me.
On that basis, I think we are substantially in agreement.
Glad we had this talk then lol