Sunday, 31 July 2011

Toward a government of men...
That Cassidy sees the question of "whether Congress has criminalized innocent behaviour†as less important than whether prosecutorial discretion is being "properly†exercised may stem from confidence that a J.D. (Harvard) "Masonic handshake†will protect him from the "ballooning law + prosecutorial malice†mousetraps that lie in wait for the rest of us. But circumstances have a way of changing; just ask Martha Stewart.
Related:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
"Discretionary†"Justice†Dept
In response to last weekend’s Wall Street Journal article As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Ensnared, a law professor writes:...You suggest that it is "increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side†of a "balloon[ing]†body of federal criminal law. What you fail to discuss is the prosecutorial discretion imbedded in our criminal justice system. Not every violation of criminal law brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities results in an indictment... I suspect that in each of the cases [cited in the article] the prosecutors had reasons beyond the surface elements of the crimes... for commencing the particular prosecution. I also suspect that in each of their jurisdictions many more instances of similar conduct were resolved civilly or not pursued at all.Prof. Cassidy writes as if the "many more instances†being "not pursued†is a good thing. He’s wrong. Every violation of the law "brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities†that does not lead to prosecution takes us one step closer to a "government of men, not laws,†in which there will be one law for the elite and connected, and another law for the targeted (and the rest of us). The only barrier: The good behaviour of men who, after all, are not only lawyers but also politicians.
The real question, in my view, isn’t wheher Congress has criminalized innocent behaviour, but whether prosecutors are exercising their discretion properly...
Prof. R. Michael Cassidy
Boston College Law School
Newton, Mass.
That Cassidy sees the question of "whether Congress has criminalized innocent behaviour†as less important than whether prosecutorial discretion is being "properly†exercised may stem from confidence that a J.D. (Harvard) "Masonic handshake†will protect him from the "ballooning law + prosecutorial malice†mousetraps that lie in wait for the rest of us. But circumstances have a way of changing; just ask Martha Stewart.
Related:
Daily Pundit: More laws mean more crime
Protein Wisdom: Obama’s head nannies are eager to enforce...
Old Grouch: Too many "feloniesâ€
Daily Pundit: Watch your mouth - and your web site
Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment Rights for Non-Violent Felons?
Instapundit: In the comments to this [earlier] Volokh post...
Outside reading (HT for some: Instapundit):Protein Wisdom: Obama’s head nannies are eager to enforce...
Old Grouch: Too many "feloniesâ€
Daily Pundit: Watch your mouth - and your web site
Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment Rights for Non-Violent Felons?
Instapundit: In the comments to this [earlier] Volokh post...
Angela Davis: Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor
Gene Healy: Go Directly To Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything
Paul Rozenwig & Brian W. Walsh: One Nation Under Arrest
Harvey Silverglate: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
Gene Healy: Go Directly To Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything
Paul Rozenwig & Brian W. Walsh: One Nation Under Arrest
Harvey Silverglate: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
Posted by: Old Grouch in
Rants
at
21:03:32 GMT
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 7 kb.
72kb generated in CPU 0.0442, elapsed 0.3279 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.3206 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
51 queries taking 0.3206 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.