It's
typical and common for district attorneys to charge anyone at all
involved with a firearm in any sort of circumstance. They operate from
two core principles that are diametrically opposed to liberty.
1. They are paid to prosecute people and derive benefit and prestige from 'victories' in the courtroom. The inherent conflict of interest here is that they could care less about guilt or innocence but more about winning. Justice, as any attorney will tell you, is not about right and wrong, but about meeting the burden of proof.
2. As officers of the State, and universally, supporters of 'the rule of law' they will always believe in the supremacy of the State. Therefore, they subconsciously accept the false premise that the State should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Both of these conditions were a large factor in why common law required the use of a grand jury. It was referred to as grand because it was the more important of the two in the jury system. The grand jury decided first and foremost if you should have your liberty denied - if there was a crime even committed. We essentially no longer have this, but have invested this incredibly destructive power in a single, and essentially unaccountable human being: the police officer.
Just being charged with a crime, not even convicted has a terrible and life long consequence. Your arrest records are public, your job, your credit, your reputation is all potentially lost by the whim of some cop you may have pissed off. Moreover, any DA can bring charges against you without any sort of review by a grand jury. It costs a LOT of money to defend yourself from legal charges and even if you win, the tens of thousands will never be repaid.
And what's worse, you have zero recourse. There is no legal means to demand justice from those who supposedly administer it. This was the heart of why we had a grand jury.
Such destructive power was never to be left in the hands of one person. How often have you heard of a DA loosing a reelection bid? Rarely. So these people become entrenched and to do business in their courts, practicing attorneys must pay fealty or face a rough time from DA's who won't cooperate.
Add all this in, and you get travesties we don't hear about. The Castle Doctrine, which exists in my state, Pennsylvania, was part of a band aid remedy to this type of abuse. As we can see, it's a joke. Treating symptoms but not root causes. If you really want to repair the system, DA's MUST be held accountable. Grand Juries must be the only way to arrest without a crime being committed in the officer's presence. Individual police officers must be subject to electoral review - ie; cops should be able to be fired by local referendum.
None of these will EVER happen because the judicial system, or more accurately, the prison industrial complex is far too corrupt. There's way too much power and money invested here for change to occur without a violent overthrow of the system. The people in charge are too intelligent to allow it to ever get that bad. But we're close...
1. They are paid to prosecute people and derive benefit and prestige from 'victories' in the courtroom. The inherent conflict of interest here is that they could care less about guilt or innocence but more about winning. Justice, as any attorney will tell you, is not about right and wrong, but about meeting the burden of proof.
2. As officers of the State, and universally, supporters of 'the rule of law' they will always believe in the supremacy of the State. Therefore, they subconsciously accept the false premise that the State should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Both of these conditions were a large factor in why common law required the use of a grand jury. It was referred to as grand because it was the more important of the two in the jury system. The grand jury decided first and foremost if you should have your liberty denied - if there was a crime even committed. We essentially no longer have this, but have invested this incredibly destructive power in a single, and essentially unaccountable human being: the police officer.
Just being charged with a crime, not even convicted has a terrible and life long consequence. Your arrest records are public, your job, your credit, your reputation is all potentially lost by the whim of some cop you may have pissed off. Moreover, any DA can bring charges against you without any sort of review by a grand jury. It costs a LOT of money to defend yourself from legal charges and even if you win, the tens of thousands will never be repaid.
And what's worse, you have zero recourse. There is no legal means to demand justice from those who supposedly administer it. This was the heart of why we had a grand jury.
Such destructive power was never to be left in the hands of one person. How often have you heard of a DA loosing a reelection bid? Rarely. So these people become entrenched and to do business in their courts, practicing attorneys must pay fealty or face a rough time from DA's who won't cooperate.
Add all this in, and you get travesties we don't hear about. The Castle Doctrine, which exists in my state, Pennsylvania, was part of a band aid remedy to this type of abuse. As we can see, it's a joke. Treating symptoms but not root causes. If you really want to repair the system, DA's MUST be held accountable. Grand Juries must be the only way to arrest without a crime being committed in the officer's presence. Individual police officers must be subject to electoral review - ie; cops should be able to be fired by local referendum.
None of these will EVER happen because the judicial system, or more accurately, the prison industrial complex is far too corrupt. There's way too much power and money invested here for change to occur without a violent overthrow of the system. The people in charge are too intelligent to allow it to ever get that bad. But we're close...
No comments:
Post a Comment