TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:Prosecutors sometimes develop a weird (to me) attitude that once charges are brought they must be pursued.

However, as I said above, I just can't see proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and it's a juvenile case that is essentially nonsense anyway.

The county DA has no reason to carry water for TCISD, either.

- Jim

A prime example of that was that idiot that wouldn't drop charges against those Duke LaCross players. It ended up costing him his law license and some prison time. More DA's need that particular course of study, including the loss of license and time in the pen. It wouldn't hurt quite a few judges either.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Prosecutors sometimes develop a weird (to me) attitude that once charges are brought they must be pursued. - Jim

A prime example of that was that idiot that wouldn't drop charges against those Duke LaCross players. It ended up costing him his law license and some prison time.

I had forgotten about this example. It is so rare for this to happen, that I can't think of another case where the DA was charged with a crime.

GIYF. District attorneys have been convicted of everything from election fraud to bribery to obstruction of justice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:GIYF. District attorneys have been convicted of everything from election fraud to bribery to obstruction of justice. - Jim

Yes, but that's entirely different than being sanctioned or charged with a crime related to misconduct or misuse of their prosecutorial power.

The obstruction of justice charges often involve withholding evidence from the defense or even conspiring with investigators. These are usually cases where they want to dispose of a case and know the public defender isn't going to work too hard. (Also the defendants probably are guilty of something.)

The case that you are talking about became a cause célèbre because of the racial and sexual aspects.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The obstruction of justice charges often involve withholding evidence from the defense or even conspiring with investigators. These are usually cases where they want to dispose of a case and know the public defender isn't going to work too hard. (Also the defendants probably are guilty of something.)

The case that you are talking about became a cause célèbre because of the racial and sexual aspects. - Jim

I think that a prosecutor's office withholding of evidence from the defense is a routine occurance. Very rarely do judges do anything about it.

WildBill wrote:I think that a prosecutor's office withholding of evidence from the defense is a routine occurance. Very rarely do judges do anything about it.

It may be routine, but it's illegal and immoral.

Judges probably do nothing about it because it rarely comes to light. Some 90% of state cases are settled by a plea bargain without a trial.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

WildBill wrote:I think that a prosecutor's office withholding of evidence from the defense is a routine occurance. Very rarely do judges do anything about it.

It may be routine, but it's illegal and immoral. - Jim

seamusTX wrote:Judges probably do nothing about it because it rarely comes to light. - Jim

That, I am not so sure about. If he wanted to, a judge could make an issue of it. It probably a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie.

I've seen plea bargains in front of a judge. They take about two minutes. I doubt the judge remembers anything about them by lunch time.

And despite the presumption of innocence, when a judge sees a defendant who is pleading to car theft or burglary for maybe the fifth time, he isn't inclined to ask a bunch of tough questions.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I've seen plea bargains in front of a judge. They take about two minutes. I doubt the judge remembers anything about them by lunch time. - Jim

There is some negotiation behind the scenes prior to a plea bargain. Oftentimes there will be a probation report with sentencing recommendations. Usually the three parties will agree on some kind of sentencing agreement prior going to lunch.

All this "zero tolerance" stuff is completely boneheaded. "Zero Tolerance" = "I don't have to think my way through this one." Zero tolerance policies are the realm of the intellectually lazy, the ethically cowardly, the judgementally impaired, and the morally crippled. It is an abdication of responsibility, and the people who advocate for it, along with the people who acquiesce to enforcing it, are not worthy of the public trust. I have ZERO respect for them.

Nobody has to take a stand for what's right, or against what's wrong, because it's the rules, baby, and "I'm just doing my job."

And to insist that a school nurse without access to diagnostic equipment who sees maybe half a dozen kids a day can out-diagnose an MD who sees a hundred patients a day backed up by a clinical lab with all the latest equipment is exactly the kind of pure arrogance that only petty officialdom can espouse, and these are the kind of minds that dream up unmitigated crapulensce like "zero tolerance."

But this is what we get when we turn over the education of our children to people whose politics reveal only average intelligence and an aversion to productivity.

Other than that, I have no particular opinion....

As I've said before, we all get what the voters vote for. I've seen school-board elections won by margins like 800 to 500 or even uncontested.

One of those Disneyland probably robots could win a school-board election.

And nobody wants to be on a school board, because the board members get blamed for everything from an individual child's bad grades to the sports teams' performance.

Also keep in mind that zero-tolerance policies are partly a response to a time when favored students—prominent athletes or children of politically connected people—were held to a different standard from kids who lived on the wrong side of the tracks.

- Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:All this "zero tolerance" stuff is completely boneheaded. "Zero Tolerance" = "I don't have to think my way through this one." Zero tolerance policies are the realm of the intellectually lazy, the ethically cowardly, the judgementally impaired, and the morally crippled. It is an abdication of responsibility, and the people who advocate for it, along with the people who acquiesce to enforcing it, are not worthy of the public trust. I have ZERO respect for them.

Nobody has to take a stand for what's right, or against what's wrong, because it's the rules, baby, and "I'm just doing my job."

And to insist that a school nurse without access to diagnostic equipment who sees maybe half a dozen kids a day can out-diagnose an MD who sees a hundred patients a day backed up by a clinical lab with all the latest equipment is exactly the kind of pure arrogance that only petty officialdom can espouse, and these are the kind of minds that dream up unmitigated crapulensce like "zero tolerance."

But this is what we get when we turn over the education of our children to people whose politics reveal only average intelligence and an aversion to productivity.

Other than that, I have no particular opinion....

I may just adopt your post as my standard response in all like conversations.. I could write my own opinion on the subject, but it would "look" to be plagiarized if they read yours.
(that means i agree)