Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
have the power to decide what crimes get prosecuted or not? It seems like they're acting as judge and jury in many cases. I don't think they should have the sole power to decide.
have the power to decide what crimes get prosecuted or not? It seems like they're acting as judge and jury in many cases. I don't think they should have the sole power to decide.
Do you want them to go to trial without a case or with insufficient evidence? The courts are tied up as it is.
My beef with prosecutors is that they grandstand and pander to voters, especially in election years.
have the power to decide what crimes get prosecuted or not? It seems like they're acting as judge and jury in many cases. I don't think they should have the sole power to decide.
They don't. But Soros supports it so they do it. Thanks to DeSantis for stopping it in Florida.
Better question: Why do we have district attorneys who are more interested in equity than....prosecuting criminals?
Yes. I think most of us are all for giving someone a second chance when they made a stupid mistake but what we are seeing from these Lefty DA's is ridiculous and their revolving door of Justice is putting decent innocent people at risk.
Bring back the 3 strikes and you are out. That would be a start. If we need more prisons then build them. If the majority of guys in there are Black then guess what it is not a problem with "Inequity" but a real problem in the Black community.
If the Dems and their Lib Da's really cared about Black people they would be locking up the criminals that plague those neighborhoods and allow the good folks to live Fear Free.
have the power to decide what crimes get prosecuted or not? It seems like they're acting as judge and jury in many cases. I don't think they should have the sole power to decide.
DAs have always made some determination as to what people to prosecute and not to prosecute. That is not really an issue if they don't abuse the power. Of course, if there is obviously not enough evidence against a person you wouldn't expect them to prosecute. If there are extenuating circumstances with a particular case, they could give some leeway.
The problem is when the DA make blanket statements that they are not going to prosecute Crime A because they feel it is unfair Or other cases such as for Crime B even though there may be minimum guidelines for prison time, they come out and say they will never seek any jail time.
It's also not just the actual prosecution. There are DAs that have forbid their prosecutors from attending parole hearings, making it much more likely for the convict to get out of prison early.
There's also the issue of understaffed AG offices. If they had to take every case to court, it could be years before someone has their day in court. Couple that with high bail for low offenses and someone could spend more time in jail awaiting trial than the sentence would be.
Do you want them to go to trial without a case or with insufficient evidence? The courts are tied up as it is.
Why don't we pay for more courts / more prisons?
Given the cost to defend a case I think it is too much power in the hands of one person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
