Comment by vivekd
6 years ago
Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges. It's pretty clear that they were acting under the color of law, given that the State admitted they hired them. If they went beyond the contract, it seems pretty clear they did it under the mistaken but reasonable belief that they had proper authority to enter. I understand ignorance of law isn't a defense but ignorance of the facts is and it seems pretty clear that's what happened here. It seems unreasonable and unnecessary to hold them in jail and unnecessary to take this to trial. I don't see how proceeding with a prosecution like this could be in the public interest.
> Here in Canada the prosecution would have quickly withdrawn the charges
There in Canada, prosecutors are not elected, because that would be completely batshit insane.
Wait, who elects prosecutors? The public or some other group? I've never heard of going to the voting ballots for anything other than a referendum or electing various levels of legislators (typically municipal, state/province/departement/district/whatever, federal/national, and perhaps transnational like European; in NL we also vote on water boards but they don't really matter as far as I can tell).
Americans love elections! They elect sheriffs [1], prosecutors [2], and often judges [3]. Imagine, you could be arrested, charged, and sentenced by whoever the general public thought had the best hair!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#...
[2] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judg...
2 replies →
> Wait, who elects prosecutors?
Among others, the fine people of Dallas County, Iowa, where this drama is taking place.
I've up-voted this because I agree with you that the election of prosecutors (and judges) is a bad idea. I suspect you are getting down-voted mostly due to your poor choice of terminology.
It is because they are being "Canada Nice" :-) "fucking Batshit Insane " is what they should have said.
Why is this insane? At least it's some kind of accountability to the public.
It creates perverse incentives, and it actually reduces accountability.
The prosecutor's job is to represent the State by applying the law to the facts. The public doesn't pay attention to the details of every individual case. The Public looks for narratives like "tough on crime," or "protecting the children," or "cracking down on illegals" or "protecting minorities," depending on where voters fall on the political spectrum.
Elected politicians put their voters’ demands first, but prosecutors are supposed to put the law and department policy first. Prosecutors would be tempted to prosecute based on political will - not guilt and evidence - which is unjust by definition. And since they're elected, they don't have to answer to the AG or city council - just the polls.
It's better to elect reps that hire/confirm, supervise and set policy for prosecutors instead.
1 reply →
They get re-elected by jailing people, so there's a built-in incentive to pander to the prejudices of the majority and convict the innocent.
2 replies →
Application of the law without fear or favour ought not be a populist exercise. Fairness can often be unpopular.
It's in the interest of the lawyers working for the state to enrich themselves and their lawyer friends who will probably take the other side of the case. Money for lawyers everywhere! America works like this because our laws are written by them.
Government lawyers aren't paid by the hour or the case.