If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My San Antonio)   If you're a prosecutor in Texas, and you hide DNA evidence to convict an innocent man of murdering his wife allowing the actual murderer to go free, then we'll promote you to Judge   (mysanantonio.com) divider line 139
    More: Asinine, justices, DNA evidence, Texas, DNA  
•       •       •

11340 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-16 01:29:16 PM
Dude must be trying to land a job in Kalifornia.
 
2013-02-16 01:30:16 PM
And THIS is why I'm fine with people being able to appeal their case. Multiple times, even. It's either incompetence, corruption, or just plain bad luck, but there are people all of the time getting wrongly convicted, and it sucks...

Also, FTFA:
But before killing her, he put on his scuba diving wet suit to disguise himself from his son.

What The Fark? The jury bit on this bullshiat?
 
2013-02-16 01:31:11 PM

PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.


And in law school you can tell who is going to gravitate to the States Attorney's Office.  They are middling students, out shined by their peers, spectacular only in their ability to fill out the back of the large classroom. And after no law review or moot court having no chance of getting an offer from any firm they become even more bitter, angry and racist than they were before their 1st Crim Pro 1 class.

You know what made most of the guys in high school who became cops different from you?  It's the same in law school.  The dumb and mean become prosecutors
 
2013-02-16 01:35:39 PM

great_tigers: Jekylman: Hmmm, Texas?  *checks article*  Ayyyyyup, Texas.

Or just read the 6th word in the headline.


Why would I read the headline?
 
2013-02-16 01:36:57 PM
gawd that douchebag should not have been allowed any where near the bench,  sadly in Texas  his behavior seems to be condoned until the state is forced to deal with irrefutable evidence of wrong doing.
 
2013-02-16 01:39:27 PM

Mikey1969: And THIS is why I'm fine with people being able to appeal their case. Multiple times, even. It's either incompetence, corruption, or just plain bad luck, but there are people all of the time getting wrongly convicted, and it sucks...

Also, FTFA:
But before killing her, he put on his scuba diving wet suit to disguise himself from his son.

What The Fark? The jury bit on this bullshiat?


That was an episode of CSI I think, scuba suit and all.

But totally agree, the system is so corrupted, you should be able to appeal as many times as needed.

The sad flip side to that though, is the ones who are actually guilty would abuse the feature like crazy.
 
2013-02-16 01:45:09 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Reminds me of a story (from PA I think) I saw here a couple years ago.  Judge was found to be getting kickbacks from a private prison when he sentenced people to prison terms.  Even after it came to light that the judge was getting paid to find people guilty there were prosecutors that didn't want new trials granted for the people they convicted with that judge presiding over the case.  One of them even said that it would ruin his track record and hurt his career during an interview, which had to be one of the most sociopathic things I've ever heard in my life.  Yeah, cuz what happened to all those other people didn't hurt their track records or hurt their careers at all; it's all about you and your ambitions, douchebag.

I also remember one of the prosecutors saying that if it was a trial by jury, then it shouldn't matter if the judge was getting kickbacks, because it was the jury that brought down the verdict.  Yeah, cuz the judge has no impact on things like what evidence can be shown, what lines of questioning are allowed, and certainly doesn't give instructions to the jury.  The fact that a practicing attorney could say that and not be disbarred was beyond me.


And if those evidentiary rulings were wrong, they'd likely have pretrial motions to appeal. So no. You're largely off base.
 
2013-02-16 01:47:20 PM
In Texas the prosecution is not required to disclose the police report, statements collected by the police, etc.

That seems to be the biggest problem here.

The Supreme Court's Brady decision would mandate disclosure of 'exculpatory' evidence, but as we see in this article, it's hard to enforce because the defense has to know it's exculpatory in order to make a motion for its disclosure.

The real problem here isn't the prosecutor, as convenient of a scapegoat as he is. The problem is that the system isn't set up for justice as the end value, it's been twisted into this notion of equalized fairness for the prosecution, which is utter nonsense. The entire DA file should be disclosed to the defense. That means less convictions, but that's more just than a system predicated on the equality of both sides where rampant injustice exists.

As well, conviction rates should be seen as some reflection of the inherent injustice of the system. In the federal courts the conviction rate is 93%. Many state courts are similar. There's been too much of a swing to the state in criminal defense jurisprudence. For example, your effective fourth amendment rights in the past 40 years has gone from something that was incredibly complex, to what is now an afterthought. These are pretty radical changes.

And they're not 'republican' or 'democrat' or any specific labels. It's not a directly partisan issue, so don't try to reduce it to that. The relationship of the citizen to the state is becoming very twisted and disordered. Injustices like this will only continue, because the way the system is evolving encourages more like it.
 
2013-02-16 01:47:45 PM

FarkinHostile: PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.

Followed closely by defense attorneys. Then lawyers in general.


cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2013-02-16 01:53:47 PM
also it's worth stating that most people who complain about these things have zero idea how their local DA's office is run.

Your DA is usually elected. If you dislike the way they prosecute people, run against them. Write articles opposing them. Recruit others to run against them.

As well, the DA budgets are usually set by county commissioners. These people are also elected. Run against them, write articles opposing them, recruit others to run against them.

There are pressure points that can affect the system in positive ways if good people get involved.
 
2013-02-16 01:57:23 PM

quiet_american: also it's worth stating that most people who complain about these things have zero idea how their local DA's office is run.

Your DA is usually elected. If you dislike the way they prosecute people, run against them. Write articles opposing them. Recruit others to run against them.

As well, the DA budgets are usually set by county commissioners. These people are also elected. Run against them, write articles opposing them, recruit others to run against them.

There are pressure points that can affect the system in positive ways if good people get involved.


as long as you aren't "found" to have committed some offense, or disappear, or commit suicide in your cell.
 
2013-02-16 01:59:41 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: FarkinHostile: PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.

Followed closely by defense attorneys. Then lawyers in general.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]



People love hating on defense attorneys, but let's look at what that person gets to do: make arguments.

I realize I should just let the jokes slide, but it's really a negative social development that we act like defense attorneys are scum.

These people take someone accused of something and are the only person who gets to advocate on their behalf. Judges are usually former prosecutors. The state has these enormous resources at their disposal. There's this enormous overwhelming system suffocating a defendant, and whats a defense attorney, what role do they have? Making appeals to the judge, making arguments on their behalf, pointing out logic and fairness and common sense.

Only because we have this law-and-order bullshiat presumption that we can divine like medieval kings guilt and innocence do we hate defense attorneys. Because you can never truly know what happened, they're the most important piece of the system that prevents it from being merely a pipeline to prison, which it already is in many places.
 
2013-02-16 02:05:54 PM

quiet_american: HindiDiscoMonster: FarkinHostile: PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.

Followed closely by defense attorneys. Then lawyers in general.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]


People love hating on defense attorneys, but let's look at what that person gets to do: make arguments.

I realize I should just let the jokes slide, but it's really a negative social development that we act like defense attorneys are scum.

These people take someone accused of something and are the only person who gets to advocate on their behalf. Judges are usually former prosecutors. The state has these enormous resources at their disposal. There's this enormous overwhelming system suffocating a defendant, and whats a defense attorney, what role do they have? Making appeals to the judge, making arguments on their behalf, pointing out logic and fairness and common sense.

Only because we have this law-and-order bullshiat presumption that we can divine like medieval kings guilt and innocence do we hate defense attorneys. Because you can never truly know what happened, they're the most important piece of the system that prevents it from being merely a pipeline to prison, which it already is in many places.


yes... i absolutely agree... you should let the jokes slide.
 
2013-02-16 02:06:16 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Reminds me of a story (from PA I think) I saw here a couple years ago.  Judge was found to be getting kickbacks from a private prison when he sentenced people to prison terms.  Even after it came to light that the judge was getting paid to find people guilty there were prosecutors that didn't want new trials granted for the people they convicted with that judge presiding over the case.  One of them even said that it would ruin his track record and hurt his career during an interview, which had to be one of the most sociopathic things I've ever heard in my life.  Yeah, cuz what happened to all those other people didn't hurt their track records or hurt their careers at all; it's all about you and your ambitions, douchebag.

I also remember one of the prosecutors saying that if it was a trial by jury, then it shouldn't matter if the judge was getting kickbacks, because it was the jury that brought down the verdict.  Yeah, cuz the judge has no impact on things like what evidence can be shown, what lines of questioning are allowed, and certainly doesn't give instructions to the jury.  The fact that a practicing attorney could say that and not be disbarred was beyond me.


There were two judges, and they were sentencing children to juvie.  One of the scumbags is still protesting his innocence.
 
2013-02-16 02:11:00 PM
Ah, good ole Williamson county.  Home to god fearin' white folks and good clean country livin' as opposed to the heathens just south in Austin.

When you elect law and order nazis to positions of power for decades, you can't  then act surprised when law and order nazis do what they do.
 
2013-02-16 02:11:07 PM

Jekylman: great_tigers: Jekylman: Hmmm, Texas?  *checks article*  Ayyyyyup, Texas.

Or just read the 6th word in the headline.

Why would I read the headline?


All good, at least you read the article. Most farkers don't it seems
 
2013-02-16 02:14:28 PM

Rapmaster2000: I think this kind of thing isn't limited to Texas.


There's not a DA in the country that has ever been elected on respecting the rights of the accused and conscientiously balancing Americans' desire for security with liberty. They all get elected by promising to be tougher on crime than the other guy.
 
2013-02-16 02:14:42 PM
I don't recall [that]

/proven to work every time
 
2013-02-16 02:16:41 PM

ZAZ: The statute of limitations for perjury in Texas is two or three years. I doubt contempt of court would have a decades long limitations period.


I read an in-depth version of this story and it was argued before the court of inquiry that the cover-up was ongoing and therefore was a recent crime.
 
2013-02-16 02:17:31 PM

cman: Its a shame that one cannot get the chair for ruining lives like this.

Why is this farker not behind bars yet?


Our system of justice DEPENDS on a robust and vigorous prosecution as well as defense.  Imposing severe penalties for being wrong would cripple our justice system, and most of the time lives are ruined by being wrong, not by being malicious and underhanded.  Imposing severe penalties for being malicious and underhanded would have the same effect, because prosecutors would fear being accused of being malicious when they had simply been mistaken.

So, just like we have a system of justice that occasionally lets murderers go free as a result of requirements for proof designed to protect the innocent, we have a system that lacks severe punishments for prosecutors in order to preserve the system of justice.

He may deserve jail time (I don't think the chair, but you're welcome to your opinion), but it ain't gonna happen.  I do hope he gets disbarred and the living shiat sued out of him.
 
2013-02-16 02:20:05 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Immunitiy is invoked to get shiat dismissed before the trial stage. If he's already at the trial stage, I think that means immunity doesn't apply. I don't think it can be asserted as a defense once you are in trial, only as a claim to get a summary judgment or dismissal in your favor. Also, immunity generally only applies so long as your are actin in accordance with established laws or agency rules, not acting in direct contravention of them, such as what is alleged in this case, inentional conealment of exculpatory evidence.


It's a grant of immunity from civil damages, I'm wondering if this action based on a criminal? charge is enough to overcome that immunity or if he needs to be retried again.  The article isn't great on what exactly is being done at this trial.  It's a suit brought by the state bar, is it an action to disbar him?  Criminal charges? what?

Giant Clown Shoe: They are middling students, out shined by their peers, spectacular only in their ability to fill out the back of the large classroom.


Me and my friends at the back of the room are all doing criminal appointments and doc review.  The future prosecutors were all sitting in the front of the class gunning.
 
2013-02-16 02:21:19 PM
Why does this shock people? It's SOP.

Prosecutors advance in their career by getting convictions, not by allowing innocent people go free.

They have the practically limitless power of the government behind them. The entire system is weighted against the (typical) individual.

What do people expect to happen?
 
2013-02-16 02:22:38 PM
Where I grew up we had a county prosecutor who ran on a platform of charging all minors who have alcohol in their system while driving with a DUI.  Michigan has zero tolerance for minors driving with any measurable BAC.  So his whole platform was to enforce the law as strictly as possible.  He won in a landslide.  The citizens were very concerned with teenage DUIs apparently.
 
2013-02-16 02:27:11 PM

rev. dave: FTFA: "I think we saw someone who is still struggling with denial and anger, a man who has spent at least three decades in power who for the first time is having to answer for his actions."

I think the damage he has done over his entire career will be hard to quantify.  So lets go ahead and give him the death penalty.  Make an example of him like he has done so many times in the past.


this
but we dont need to let him present any evidence, because, well, we KNOW he is a bad guy.
and we KNOW the death penalty has never ever put an innocent man to death.
/sarcasm alert for the sarcasm impaired

WHAT an asshole
 
2013-02-16 02:34:54 PM
How much bullshiat will people take before they start killing the evil motherfarkers surrounding them?
 
2013-02-16 02:37:22 PM

snuffy: it is about time this a**hole gets his.

he has been screwing people since the 70's


Yes, I know firsthand.
 
2013-02-16 02:38:32 PM

Champion of the Sun: Me and my friends at the back of the room are all doing criminal appointments and doc review. The future prosecutors were all sitting in the front of the class gunning.


Sounds like I went to a better law school. ; )
 
2013-02-16 02:46:57 PM

DubyaHater: So the man spent 25 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. He had free room-and-board, free meals and access to a gym, TV and a library. What's the problem?


There's no liberty/pursuit of happiness in prison.
/ehhh shouldn't feed the trolls, oops.
 
2013-02-16 02:57:40 PM

James F. Campbell: How much bullshiat will people take before they start killing the evil motherfarkers surrounding them?


I think we covered that question last week, in L. A.
 
2013-02-16 02:59:48 PM

Giant Clown Shoe: PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.

And in law school you can tell who is going to gravitate to the States Attorney's Office.  They are middling students, out shined by their peers, spectacular only in their ability to fill out the back of the large classroom. And after no law review or moot court having no chance of getting an offer from any firm they become even more bitter, angry and racist than they were before their 1st Crim Pro 1 class.

You know what made most of the guys in high school who became cops different from you?  It's the same in law school.  The dumb and mean become prosecutors


That's interesting. It makes a lot of sense.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-16 03:05:43 PM
Your DA is usually elected. If you dislike the way they prosecute people, run against them. Write articles opposing them. Recruit others to run against them.

The Essex County, Mass. DA decided to prosecute a burglary victim with felony assault for punching the burglar in the face. The editorial linked below was typical of the response. This happened at the right time in the election cycle to draw a threat of a contested election. The DA later dropped charges. (Technically nol prosse, which means he could bring the charges again after publicity goes away, but so far as I know he did not.)

http://www.wickedlocal.com/halifax/topstories/x1749265921/HERE-S-THE -P OINT-Something-wrong-with-this-picture
 
2013-02-16 03:07:31 PM

strangeluck: Mikey1969: And THIS is why I'm fine with people being able to appeal their case. Multiple times, even. It's either incompetence, corruption, or just plain bad luck, but there are people all of the time getting wrongly convicted, and it sucks...

Also, FTFA:
But before killing her, he put on his scuba diving wet suit to disguise himself from his son.

What The Fark? The jury bit on this bullshiat?

That was an episode of CSI I think, scuba suit and all.

But totally agree, the system is so corrupted, you should be able to appeal as many times as needed.

The sad flip side to that though, is the ones who are actually guilty would abuse the feature like crazy.


Nah, the CSI episode was the urban legend of "Scuba diver found in the middle of a forest fire".
 
2013-02-16 03:10:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: How much bullshiat will people take before they start killing the evil motherfarkers surrounding them?

I think we covered that question last week, in L. A.


Which apparently also included murdering folks tangentially related.
 
2013-02-16 03:11:23 PM
Sitting on the stand with a box of tissues, Anderson got tearful as he protested his innocence: "The office I ran was professional. It was competent. We did things right. We got it right."


So he's incompetent, AND a weepy little girl?

/apologies to any actual little girls reading this
//you're apparently more of a man than this Texas asshole
 
2013-02-16 03:11:27 PM
He committed a crime that resulted in destroying an innocent man's life as well as the son's life.  He belongs in prison.  I'm going to guess he will be shielded under that immunity loophole the authorities use to cover their own ass.

When an honest mistake is made, e.g. the prosecutor has believable evidence that the person did it, you don't go after them, but to purposely hide evidence should remove all immunity normally granted.
 
2013-02-16 03:16:43 PM

cman: Its a shame that one cannot get the chair for ruining lives like this.

Why is this farker not behind bars yet?



Because nearly every prosecutor in the country belongs behind bars for similar conduct?

And who will prosecute the prosecutors?


/Justice isn't just
 
2013-02-16 03:33:36 PM
When on a jury don't even listen to the "judges instructions"-you are the jury not him or her.
And on really stupid unjust laws don't hesitate to educate the other jurors on jury nullification.
Per the federalist papers our country's constitution was founded on it truly is our last line of defense for unjust laws.

/ not a wacko
// what right is right and what is wrong is wrong
/// as a jury foreman judge was pissed when mentioned his instructions (opinion) really doesn't matter
    to our decision.
//// research jury nullification
 
2013-02-16 03:43:56 PM

myislanduniverse: MFAWG: Ken Anderson, now a Williamson County district judge, testified repeatedly during a rare court of inquiry that he had little memory of the trial or the case


Of course he doesn't.

It only made his career, and he has recounted it as one of the seminal moments... and he's previously defended his handling of it.  But it's easy to just "forget" these things when you need to.


kind of like "i don't recall" when asked by the senate.
 
2013-02-16 03:46:32 PM
Texas need a lot more Rick Caseys.
 
2013-02-16 03:58:23 PM
By Texas statute, it is a prosecutor's "Duty to see that justice is done." (citation omitted). Prosecutors typically look at the facts of a case and make a plea bargain offer---however if the Defendant rejects it, then the prosecutor puts the full weight of his office against the Defendant and seeks to obtain the most punishment possible---usually because the Defendant made him "work for it" (in other words, prove it) How come the prosecutor's view changed? Why wasn't his assessment consistent? Because prosecutors only want to win and they want every Defendant and defense attorney to know that if they don't accept his offer that they will get their butts kicked---That is how the Williamson County DA's office has always been run (well, probably most DA's offices too) and they still, even under a new DA, do not give copies of police reports/witness statements/videos to the Defense.  The judges are mostly former DA's and don't give 2 shiats about anybody/anything but their re-election.
 
2013-02-16 04:13:35 PM
Rough timeline for those not familiar:

1986 - Christine Morton murdered. Lead investigator zeroes in on Michael Morton and won't consider or follow up on other possibilities.
1987 - Ken Anderson prosecutes Michael Morton and hides evidence (doesn't put lead investigator on the stand and more damningly, doesn't turn over the notes about these items to the judge as ordered to), such as the witness account from the three year old boy, the witness statements from neighbors about a green van and a man walking into the woods, and the fact that Christine's credit card was used two days after the murder. I think that the defense had access to the bandana but without DNA testing or the other information it wasn't particularly relevant.
1988 - Debra Baker murdered by the same person who murdered Christine.
2002 - Ken Anderson becomes district judge and John Bradley becomes DA.
2005 - Innocence Project/Michael Morton try to get access to other evidence and get the bandana DNA tested. John Bradley blocks efforts for five years.
2011 - Michael Morton declared innocent. Real killer is found.
2012 - John Bradley loses re-election. Inquiry process starts for Ken Anderson.
 
2013-02-16 04:18:55 PM

TiiiMMMaHHH: DubyaHater: So the man spent 25 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. He had free room-and-board, free meals and access to a gym, TV and a library. What's the problem?

This.  I mean, his wife is dead.  What the hell else is he going to do with his time?


Not to mention he got free child care for his kid. He definitely came out ahead when all's said and done.
 
2013-02-16 04:27:25 PM

Rapmaster2000: I think this kind of thing isn't limited to Texas.


Hey now, who else will these morons project all of our countries problems on?
 
2013-02-16 04:30:09 PM
In law school, you have to take a class called "Professional Responsibility". Despite it supposedly being one of the most important parts of law, it's a one-term course, usually taken in your 3L year, generally because it's a big part of the bar exam. There's a very brief section about the special duties required of prosecutors, and an even briefer section in THAT about how the prosecutor's job is not to "win" but to ensure a proper carriage of justice, including his duty to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a timely fashion, and to fairly pursue all investigative leads, regardless of whether they will help or harm his case.

This is so little stressed, it might as well be ignored in law school; and in the real world, we all know that the whole point of ANY endeavor is to win, whether it's a pick-up basketball game or a Presidential election. So how can we be surprised that prosecutors (who are elected) cheat and lie in the pursuit of "justice"? Prosecutors should be hired by the city or state, which would at least make their jobs less dependent on a winning record (though not fully free of it). Better still would be an independent audit system; but that would require a loosening of the confidentiality that protects the attorney-client relationship. Pesky civil rights again.
 
2013-02-16 04:31:59 PM

quiet_american: Only because we have this law-and-order bullshiat presumption that we can divine like medieval kings guilt and innocence do we hate defense attorneys. Because you can never truly know what happened, they're the most important piece of the system that prevents it from being merely a pipeline to prison, which it already is in many places.


Your Jib. I like the cut of it.
 
2013-02-16 04:45:35 PM
Go into an major DA's offices and tucked away out of public view but prominent enough that employees can find it, you will see "the board".  Dallas county has one.  Tarrant does too.  "The board" is usually a giant whiteboard with each prosecutor's name listed on it.  Next to each name is their vital statistics such as wins, losses, trials, pleas, etc.

This manner of public accolades and shame serves to drive home one point and one point only:  Winning isn't everything, it's the *only* thing.
 
2013-02-16 04:49:03 PM

Gyrfalcon: In law school, you have to take a class called "Professional Responsibility". Despite it supposedly being one of the most important parts of law, it's a one-term course, usually taken in your 3L year, generally because it's a big part of the bar exam. There's a very brief section about the special duties required of prosecutors, and an even briefer section in THAT about how the prosecutor's job is not to "win" but to ensure a proper carriage of justice, including his duty to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a timely fashion, and to fairly pursue all investigative leads, regardless of whether they will help or harm his case.

This is so little stressed, it might as well be ignored in law school; and in the real world, we all know that the whole point of ANY endeavor is to win, whether it's a pick-up basketball game or a Presidential election. So how can we be surprised that prosecutors (who are elected) cheat and lie in the pursuit of "justice"? Prosecutors should be hired by the city or state, which would at least make their jobs less dependent on a winning record (though not fully free of it). Better still would be an independent audit system; but that would require a loosening of the confidentiality that protects the attorney-client relationship. Pesky civil rights again.


Considering you have to pass the MPRE to even sit for the bar in most states, seems like ethics is stressed sufficiently.  Granted, almost all of these shiat heel prosecutors went to law school before the MPRE it's a moot point.

I hate elected prosecutors, it just begs for injustice.  But I can't see a system where a bunch of nepotism hires prosecuting our laws would be better either.  Maybe we should do away with dedicated prosecutors altogether, do it by appointment.  Put your name on a list, and you get called to either prosecute or defend, no choice in the matter.  Wouldn't work in a lot of cases because you need some specific knowledge, but it could work.  Maybe a central arbiter of who to charge and who not to, so we still have prosecutorial discretion, but that person wouldn't argue the cases.  Things like OJ and Casey Anthony wouldn't happen anymore, prosecutors looking for a boost in their careers wouldn't be able to bungle and mischarge people for their own gain.

Ultimately, the flawed system we have now is the best that can be done.
 
2013-02-16 04:58:39 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: FarkinHostile: PreMortem: Prosecutors are the most evil people people I've had the non-pleasure of being around.

Followed closely by defense attorneys. Then lawyers in general.

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 420x250]


you understand, Shakespeare had an evil authoritarian proclaim that to his friends so he'd not be bothered any more by their pursuit of Justice? That the whole quote is Tongue in cheek? Just making sure.
 
2013-02-16 05:02:23 PM
Champion of the Sun:

I hate elected prosecutors, it just begs for injustice.  But I can't see a system where a bunch of nepotism hires prosecuting our laws would be better either.  Maybe we should do away with dedicated prosecutors altogether, do it by appointment.  Put your name on a list, and you get called to either prosecute or defend, no choice in the matter.  Wouldn't work in a lot of cases because you need some specific knowledge, but it could work.  Ma ...

Two quotes come to mind:

"Every nation has the government they deserve." - De Maistre

"We do not need to get good laws to restrain bad people. We need to get good people to restrain us from bad laws." - Chesterton

Agree with RocketDude on nullification. It doesn't seem like people fully understand that you can nullify even stupid laws, not just horribly unjust ones. The people are the final judge.
 
2013-02-16 05:07:07 PM

quiet_american: Agree with RocketDude on nullification. It doesn't seem like people fully understand that you can nullify even stupid laws, not just horribly unjust ones. The people are the final judge.


I'm not sure regular Texans would be any more just than a corrupt prosecutor though.  Nullification is a double edged sword, a lot of ugly shiat can get excused by it too.  People bring up lynchings going unpunished back in the day because of nullification.  Not sure how true that is though.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report