The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 22, 2017, 01:20 AM   #26
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suthern1
...Which prospect in itself being politically or monetarily motivated is an offense to there oath of office and the constitution. ...
Can you cite legal authority to support that conjecture? The reality is that the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion is well established in American law. It reflects the reality that (1) persons accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (2) resources available to prosecutors and courts are limited. Prosecutors out of necessity must have discretion as to how to use the limited resources available.

Courts have rarely found fault with an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and then only when the party objecting has been able to show by clear and convincing evidence both a discriminatory effect and a discriminatory purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suthern1
....So lets not be bias and prosecute all crime or none is my point....
If that's your point, so what? That's not the way things work, and the world will continue on about its business without regard to your opinions.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 22, 2017, 01:50 AM   #27
Suthern1
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2017
Posts: 12
I can cite the case law to you yes but wait... did we skip over something?
How was I wrong again?

Anyway the fact is that if you say I must be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink alcohol and I smoke and drink at 17 then I have committed two offenses. In that instant discretion is appropriate and I may be prosecuted for one or the other instead of both. However if you say I "shall not" grow weed or make suppressors and i do one someone else the other there is no legal basis for which you may discriminate against me because one is "less offensive" in the public political view than the other. I would certainly argue clear and convincing discrimination if I were in that situation.

BUT... I think you missed the discussion here. If you want to put on a legal argument rather than a discussion I would be willing to do that. But here because that argument would be moot what my point is does matter regardless of how things work... in your view. "Necessitate discretion on how resources are spent" That a poor reasoning if ever there was one. Can you point to the morality statutes that divine what offense is better for the public to be prosecuted. Does that statute specify between sexual assault of a child and rape of an adult and which takes financial priority??

You cant shut down someones point of view because they dont prove a hypothetical but somewhat obvious motivation to you. For that matter where is your proof that Unicorns dont exist?
Suthern1 is offline  
Old October 22, 2017, 01:57 AM   #28
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suthern1
....You cant shut down someones point of view because they dont prove a hypothetical but somewhat obvious motivation to you. For that matter where is your proof that Unicorns dont exist?
It's about reality. We try to discuss how things work so that we can understand how things work. People tend to have all sorts of notions about how they think things should work, but all those notions really don't help understand reality.

How the law and the legal system work will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your points of view and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 22, 2017 at 02:11 AM. Reason: Correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 22, 2017, 02:22 AM   #29
Suthern1
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2017
Posts: 12
Ok I can stay within that frame.

So the reality is that because these discussions are never had nothing ever changes. The reality is 2$ wont buy my coffee and the reality is that a billion dollar illegal industry is going on full force right under the nose nay snubbing its nose at the Federal Government and that Government does nothing according to its "policy" but would rather prosecute an individual whom it knows will not have the public support or media attention.

The reality is that the legal system is not a justice system.
Suthern1 is offline  
Old October 22, 2017, 03:09 AM   #30
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suthern1
...So the reality is that because these discussions are never had nothing ever changes....
Many things have changed since the founding of our Republic and not because of discussions of anonymous denizens of cyberspace. If you want to change things, get out into the real world, get politically active and see if you can sell your vision of how the world should be out there in meatspace.

And if you want to do away with prosecutorial discretion, how do you propose dealing with the result? How would you distinguish the prosecutor's decision not to pursue a criminal charge because in his exercise of professional judgment he's concluded that here was insufficient evidence to convict from an exercise of discretion? Will the prosecutor now have to spend his time defending every decision not to prosecute instead of spending his time prosecuting crimes he can convict for? And how will we pay for the expansion of court and police capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suthern1
...The reality is that the legal system is not a justice system.
Of course not. In any case what is "justice"? Your idea of justice? What if someone else has a different idea? In The Republic Plato describes Socrates and his students trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to define justice.

In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen:
Quote:
... STEPHEN [rising and looking at him steadily] I know the difference between right and wrong.

UNDERSHAFT [hugely tickled] You don't say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you're a genius, master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!...
Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but how do we punish a man stealing bread to feed his starving child.

That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life.

Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 25, 2017, 07:50 AM   #31
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
So the reality is that because these discussions are never had nothing ever changes.
These discussions happen all of the time. I would tarry to say that they do not happen often enough amongst those who have the power, position, and authority to make real changes. You or I do not have that power. I understand exactly what you're saying and where you're coming from. The Federal Government is ignoring one class of felony while going full-bore on another. In essence, it does not seem fair on the surface. It's a lot more nuanced than that. Public opinion of marijuana has changed to such a degree that prosecutors will have a hard time getting any conviction on any amount of marijuana from a jury of 12. I have personally seen it. My last trail where we underwent jury selection was a drug trail. During Voir Dire, the prosecutor purposefully threw out that "this isn't marijuana, I understand the culture shift in feeling on marijuana, but this isn't that. It's "crack" cocaine." Needless to say, there are VERY few felony trails that involve marijuana even at state levels these days, at least in my state. If you are aware that there is at least a 50/50 chance that any jury you seat will nullify the law (especially for personal use of marijuana, or even for sales in states that have legalized it and the seller pays taxes on his income), why waste the resources needed on a 50/50 gamble even after you prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt? Unfortunately public opinion on firearm regulations differ from public opinion on marijuana laws. Especially for "silencers." THIS IS OUR CURRENT REALITY
5whiskey is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04979 seconds with 8 queries