3 Adams Case Prosecutors Resign Rather Than Express Regret to Justice Dept.
3 Adams Case Prosecutors Resign Rather Than Express Regret to Justice Dept.
www.nytimes.com
3 Adams Case Prosecutors Resign Rather Than Express Regret to Justice Dept.
27 comments
-
It's strange the way resigning seems to be treated as some sort of protest in and of itself. It's not. It's giving up. Protest would be refusing to resign, refusing to obey orders, and delegitimizating the people giving those orders.
Resigning just makes it easier for someone less principled to come along and do the job.
-
I'm not sure. I can see it both ways. If you've ever worked in a place where a bunch of people in important roles quit, it fucks the place up usually in pretty significant ways.
Maybe the best of all the options is "stay on, agree to everything, but go full fascism-resistance-field-manual in trying to actively undermine everything that anyone tries to do." IDK if that goes into the newspapers when it happens though.
-
It's one thing when everybody quits Starbucks. It's another when everybody who might do the right thing resigns from all the positions of power.
-
-
-
That’s great, really. But I still find it a bit ironic for federal prosecutors to take a stand on refusing to admit something they don’t want to admit, when that’s what they force most of the people they prosecute to do. Plea or rot in jail is their go-to strategy...
Still the right decision, but these are not heroes…just people who made the right call for a change.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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.”
What would you think of a rule giving a person charged with a crime a voucher payable to their lawyer, where the amount of the voucher is equal to the amount spent against them times a factor based on their income?
-
that’s what they force most of the people they prosecute to do.
It's weird how that's not even true. "Plead out or gamble" is more apt. You get your answers off TV?
-
27 comments