196

16442 readers

1546 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

669

It's the (Rule)! (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Prosecutorial discretion is a big problem really. It's what allows laws to be applied unequally, why black people are prosecuted way more than white people, and, as you mention, provides justification to jail anyone at any time because you ARE violating some law every day, almost certainly.

If prosecutorial discretion did not exist, if agents of the law were required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law, it would require the entire legal system to be restructured in a more precise way, and would have far less room for racial, sexual, and class discrimination as well as far less capacity to be weaponized against enemies of those in power.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

"required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law", taken literally, requires prosecutors to prosecute everyone for every crime all the time. After all, you don't know what might turn up in discovery, anything could potentially have happened! Obviously, there has to be some judgement call made, where there's just not enough evidence to prosecute me for drunk driving even though I stopped an inch past the stop sign. Ultimately, that's just prosecutorial discretion again, and while it could be reformed and limited somewhat, it will always exist and be abused.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well that'd require (among other things) a simplified set of laws, clear structure, with the goal of adhering to the spirit, not the letter of the law. The result can be expected to be faster trials, reduced lawyer workloads, and all the reduction in costs that come with that.

Pssh, who wants that?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd go the other way, adhering very strictly to the letter of the law without the tiniest bit of wiggle room or interpretation of anything as nebulous as the 'spirit' of the law.

Trouble being that natural languages that people use to converse are ill suited for that level of precision and detail. I've thought that perhaps a constructed language, something between a language and programming code may be a better way to write laws.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Output still would have to be interpreted by us, if I'm understanding you correctly. Laws become innumerable, which is already a problem; how many paralegals do professional lawyers actually need at this point?

Alabama has a law on the books banning dominoes on Sundays. Every state and even the federal govt has laws in place which can be abused, even if only until a judge prevails. "One can beat the rap, but not the ride"... How about beating the ride, too?