District Attorney or Defense

[henschman]

I am always for the defense, in the sense that I think everyone should have the opportunity to point out every weakness in the accusations against him and every fact casting doubt upon them. I don't believe that there can be much assurance that someone is actually guilty of what he is accused of if he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself in this way.

As far as the prosecution goes, if there is enough evidence that it appears that a person likely aggressed against another, I am "for" the prosecution in that I do believe that person should be prosecuted, to find out whether there are any reasonable doubts as to his guilt. I am never "for" the prosecution in the sense that I want them to win the case. If the finder of fact determines that there are reasonable doubts, I don't want the prosecution to win.

Of course I don't think anyone should ever be prosecuted for something that doesn't involve the initiation of force against another person, so I am completely against the prosecution in any situation where there is not an alleged victim. In any prosecution for a victimless crime, I always hope the defendant wins regardless of whether he is guilty, and support any actions taken to defend against or evade the prosecution, including physical resistance and escape.

 

[Bierhunter]

It depends on what I know about what is going on ... I don't just automatically say "HEY!! He's the DA (or he's the defense attorney) so he must be right ..."

Same here. Which I side I root for depends upon how much I know about it, and whether or not I believe the defendent is innocent or guilty.

 

[NikatKimber]

I'm very close to henschman's view.

If it's about "winning or losing" then justice has already lost.

The point of the prosecution / defense system is to find / uncover facts about the case: and if the facts point to guilt, then to convict accordingly - but only justly - or if it points to innocence then to acquit.

There is also the use of the courts to challenge existing law - not challenging the act in question, but whether the law applies or is valid in the first place.

 

[penismightier]

Of course I don't think anyone should ever be prosecuted for something that doesn't involve the initiation of force against another person, so I am completely against the prosecution in any situation where there is not an alleged victim. In any prosecution for a victimless crime, I always hope the defendant wins regardless of whether he is guilty, and support any actions taken to defend against or evade the prosecution, including physical resistance and escape.

So you're saying that unless force is used against another, there should be no crime??


Also you are condoning resisting arrest and escape othose who are accused of these "victimless" crimes??

 

[Dave70968]

Last I heard, resisting arrest involved using force against the officer. Clearly, that would be a legitimate crime.

Of course, that presupposes that the arrest is legal in the first place. If it's not, then "resisting" is actually self-defense against an illegitimate aggressor. The use of force in legitimate self-defense is not wrong; in fact, there's substantial court precedent to suggest that resisting an unlawful arrest is perfectly legal. Indiana even made headlines a few years ago for explicitly codifying a citizen's right to resist an unlawful arrest with force, up to and including deadly force.

henschman's position appears to be that victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes, and therefore he supports resisting arrest for such crimes (he is, of course, free to correct my understanding). I agree with him that victimless crimes ought be no crimes at all, and that arrest for same is illegitimate; however, I'd note that in the eyes of the law, those crimes are on the books, so while they're morally treasonous, they'll still land you in jail, or on a slab for resisting. Still, I like Indiana's solution...and I hope to see a repeal of a lot of laws that criminalize behavior that doesn't actually hurt anybody (save, possibly, for the actor...but it's his life to live, now isn't it?).

 

[henschman]

So you're saying that unless force is used against another, there should be no crime??


Also you are condoning resisting arrest and escape othose who are accused of these "victimless" crimes??

I didn't think I was being vague...