Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How prosecutors came to dominate the criminal-justice system
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soonerwings" data-source="post: 2737944" data-attributes="member: 8035"><p>I'm not a prosecutor, and I don't know if I'd want to be, but it seems to me that they're kind of getting a bum rap in this thread. I know several assistant district attorneys and most of them area fair minded, reasonable people. They have a tough job. They have to decide whether or not to prosecute TONS of cases. The folders just keep coming. </p><p></p><p>Prosecutor's don't typically decide to prosecute if they don't believe there's good reason. Why shouldn't they hold the cards in the plea deal process? A plea deal is only obtained through a plea (on the part of the defendant) of "guilty" or "no contest." If a defendant is admitting guilt, or that they couldn't win (introduce reasonable doubt) their case against the state, then why shouldn't the people charged with upholding the law (an expression of the will of the people) have the lions share of the deal making power?</p><p></p><p>Plea deals are necessary. Plain and simple. There are just too many cases. If they all went to trial, the dockets would be hopelessly backlogged. Is there anecdotal evidence of prosecutorial abuse or of defendants getting convicted on weak evidence? Sure there is, and there's a hell of a lot of it. That being said there are a hell of a lot more cases where the right person got convicted or the prosecutor did the right thing. It's easy to overlook the overwhelming quantity of good product when there are a few examples of bad product.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soonerwings, post: 2737944, member: 8035"] I'm not a prosecutor, and I don't know if I'd want to be, but it seems to me that they're kind of getting a bum rap in this thread. I know several assistant district attorneys and most of them area fair minded, reasonable people. They have a tough job. They have to decide whether or not to prosecute TONS of cases. The folders just keep coming. Prosecutor's don't typically decide to prosecute if they don't believe there's good reason. Why shouldn't they hold the cards in the plea deal process? A plea deal is only obtained through a plea (on the part of the defendant) of "guilty" or "no contest." If a defendant is admitting guilt, or that they couldn't win (introduce reasonable doubt) their case against the state, then why shouldn't the people charged with upholding the law (an expression of the will of the people) have the lions share of the deal making power? Plea deals are necessary. Plain and simple. There are just too many cases. If they all went to trial, the dockets would be hopelessly backlogged. Is there anecdotal evidence of prosecutorial abuse or of defendants getting convicted on weak evidence? Sure there is, and there's a hell of a lot of it. That being said there are a hell of a lot more cases where the right person got convicted or the prosecutor did the right thing. It's easy to overlook the overwhelming quantity of good product when there are a few examples of bad product. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How prosecutors came to dominate the criminal-justice system
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom