I just heard back from my younger (prosecuting attorney in Ohio). Here's his reply:

"Crimes - drug related mostly. Trafficking and of course abuse. This also leads to a lot of theft and robbery because people need $ to buy more drugs. Sad cycle"

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

We have had threads about rogue police officers, FBI agents too, causing innocents to be convicted. Now we have the prospect of a senior FBI agent with his thumb on the scale against our noble President, even.

I often wonder about these kinds of cases because I really don't know. How often are these things prosecuted opposed to a settlement? I feel like this may be one of the few instances where we really could make the punishment fit the crime. For example: Rogue officer/agent knowingly causes an innocent person to be convicted of a crime with a sentence of life without possibility, well there's the punishment right there. If you're willing to strip freedom/livelyhood/etc. from another person for your personal gain, then you can lose just as much.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You may be familiar with the murder conviction of Debra Milke in Arizona, and the opinion of Judge Kozinski which led to her release after more than 20 years. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/da...%20-%20corrected.pdf

If this was a one off, I might not worry too much, but it isn’t.

Do you think this would happen to the same person 4 separate times in their life?

We can "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point we have to draw a line.

One could argue we should never incarcerate anyone because we risk incarcerating someone wrongly.

If you get framed/cheated/wrongfully prosecuted 4 separate times in your life...I mean, come on, is that realistic?

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
Sadly, in my experience, most every client I had who was a child abuser/child porn addict was abused themselves as a child. It is a cycle. They were victims once as children, and they go on to be abusers as a result.

I have seen that written elsewhere. I find the link between the two very hard to understand.

I would think it would be the opposite - like if you grow up watching your drunk Dad beat your Mom ... you would never want to touch a drop of alcohol.

-------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You may be familiar with the murder conviction of Debra Milke in Arizona, and the opinion of Judge Kozinski which led to her release after more than 20 years. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/da...%20-%20corrected.pdf

If this was a one off, I might not worry too much, but it isn’t.

Do you think this would happen to the same person 4 separate times in their life?

We can "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point we have to draw a line.

One could argue we should never incarcerate anyone because we risk incarcerating someone wrongly.

If you get framed/cheated/wrongfully prosecuted 4 separate times in your life...I mean, come on, is that realistic?

I agree.

Although I will say that I know a bunch of people who have that many felonies and said they did not do a bit of it. Regardless of the video, DNA, etc (and they took a plea to keep from catching the PFO enhancement) and the fact that they got caught injecting dope by a police officer (all of which is on body cam), to which they didn't do either. They were railroaded. Those weren't even their pants.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
I would think it would be the opposite - like if you grow up watching your drunk Dad beat your Mom ... you would never want to touch a drop of alcohol.

It would be so nice if this were the case. And sometimes, rarely, it is. But often when something is that ingrained in a young child it's hard to break the cycle even if you want to. Meaning that boys who see their fathers beat their mom often grow up to do the same and girls who see their mother getting beat often grow up to be with an abusive man.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You may be familiar with the murder conviction of Debra Milke in Arizona, and the opinion of Judge Kozinski which led to her release after more than 20 years. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/da...%20-%20corrected.pdf

If this was a one off, I might not worry too much, but it isn’t.

Do you think this would happen to the same person 4 separate times in their life?

We can "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point we have to draw a line.

One could argue we should never incarcerate anyone because we risk incarcerating someone wrongly.

If you get framed/cheated/wrongfully prosecuted 4 separate times in your life...I mean, come on, is that realistic?

Odds are no, of course, but what about the 4th one? That’s the only one that really counts. If that is the one they fabricate, you’re goners.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. In the opinion of many, including myself, a slight increase in the probability of the state executing someone who was only a shithead 3 times, then wrongfully convicted on the 4th is worth the reduction in crime from the policy.

The question is: Is the juice worth the squeeze? As a matter of opinion, yes.

Lawyers may hate the policy though. Society wouldn't need near as many lawyers. For them, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
Lawyers may hate the policy though. Society wouldn't need near as many lawyers.

Bingo.

There would be a ripple effect. Layoffs at BMW dealerships, custom suit makers, TV stations would have to find a way to make up advertising revenue, toupee makers, plastic surgeons (for installation of trophy wife racks), etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
I am a prosecutor (assistant, not the actual elected official) in Michigan. I prosecute mostly sex crimes with child victims.

As a parent, I have no idea how you do that, but I am grateful you do. I'm especially thankful if you are able to help the victims. Those who work to protect the innocent are doing great good, in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
I guess it's a matter of opinion. In the opinion of many, including myself, a slight increase in the probability of the state executing someone who was only a shithead 3 times, then wrongfully convicted on the 4th is worth the reduction in crime from the policy.

The question is: Is the juice worth the squeeze? As a matter of opinion, yes.

Lawyers may hate the policy though. Society wouldn't need near as many lawyers. For them, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze.

This is one of the stupidest recurring themes regularly seen in these threads.

Maybe you would be happiest to dispense with all this due process nonsense, just have the police pick up everyone they think might have something to do with some criminal situation and just execute them straight away.

I was meeting with a Saudi fellow years ago after the bombing at Khobar towers. The Saudi’s had arrested 5 or 6 guys and executed them. I asked if he thought they were the perps. He shrugged and said “maybe.”

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You may be familiar with the murder conviction of Debra Milke in Arizona, and the opinion of Judge Kozinski which led to her release after more than 20 years. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/da...%20-%20corrected.pdf

If this was a one off, I might not worry too much, but it isn’t.

Do you think this would happen to the same person 4 separate times in their life?

We can "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point we have to draw a line.

One could argue we should never incarcerate anyone because we risk incarcerating someone wrongly.

If you get framed/cheated/wrongfully prosecuted 4 separate times in your life...I mean, come on, is that realistic?

Odds are no, of course, but what about the 4th one? That’s the only one that really counts. If that is the one they fabricate, you’re goners.

I respectfully offer the follow counter arguments.

A person should be concerned with all 4 convictions. The point is that you shouldn't be living thinking I can get three felonies and be fine. You should live your life so you don't even get close to that threshold...and I'm ok with a policy that promotes that.

Furthermore, the argument exists today with our current system. A corrupt member of the executive branch can get someone pegged for a crime that would include the death penalty if so desired. At a minimum, they could ensure that person spent the rest of their life in jail by simply obtaining false felony concoctions every time the person was shocked out of jail.

Somewhere we have to draw a line and simply remove people from our society. Whether we do that by investing in prisons to hold them or put them to death, I'd be fine with either.

Where exactly that line is can and should be debated. The only answer I would find completely unacceptable is our current system of constantly recycling criminals through the revolving door that lands them on the street to prey on innocent people. So long as we do this, talking about fixing crime in our country is a complete joke.

Two felony convictions seemed like too few. Three was debatable to me. Four felt like the right number to me. if you get caught and convicted of four felonies, I highly doubt those are the only four felony level crimes you've committed in your life. As such, I don't think you really belong out on the streets to hurt my family. I'm fine saying you need to go away.

[/QUOTE]I agree.

Although I will say that I know a bunch of people who have that many felonies and said they did not do a bit of it. Regardless of the video, DNA, etc (and they took a plea to keep from catching the PFO enhancement) and the fact that they got caught injecting dope by a police officer (all of which is on body cam), to which they didn't do either. They were railroaded. Those weren't even their pants.[/QUOTE] JLJONES

Oh, you know my client then. Police keep a pair of "throwdown" pants in their car routinely, you know, for just this occasion.

Me: wouldn't it be easier to just throw down the drugs or gun or whatever?

Client: Nah, then you'd know it was planted.

Me: I see.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

I agree.

Although I will say that I know a bunch of people who have that many felonies and said they did not do a bit of it. Regardless of the video, DNA, etc (and they took a plea to keep from catching the PFO enhancement) and the fact that they got caught injecting dope by a police officer (all of which is on body cam), to which they didn't do either. They were railroaded. Those weren't even their pants.[/QUOTE] JLJONES

Oh, you know my client then. Police keep a pair of "throwdown" pants in their car routinely, you know, for just this occasion.

Me: wouldn't it be easier to just throw down the drugs or gun or whatever?

Client: Nah, then you'd know it was planted.

Me: I see.[/QUOTE]

Straight up!

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:


I respectfully offer the follow counter arguments.

A person should be concerned with all 4 convictions. The point is that you shouldn't be living thinking I can get three felonies and be fine. You should live your life so you don't even get close to that threshold...and I'm ok with a policy that promotes that.

It astonishes me how many people have serious criminal records. I’m 72 years old, and have none. No one in my family had ever been arrested or charged with anything. I can’t think of any of my current acquaintences who have criminal records. A guy I grew up with did get nailed years ago for making a false entry in a bank’s books or something, and of course, at least one client had a record. One of the guys who kid was on my kids’ t-ball team was a lawyer fencing stolen property. A law school classmate got pinched for embezzling client trust funds.

It’s just not that hard.

quote:

Somewhere we have to draw a line and simply remove people from our society. Whether we do that by investing in prisons to hold them or put them to death, I'd be fine with either.

Where exactly that line is can and should be debated. The only answer I would find completely unacceptable is our current system of constantly recycling criminals through the revolving door that lands them on the street to prey on innocent people. So long as we do this, talking about fixing crime in our country is a complete joke.

One would be fine with me for violent crimes when reasonable doubt is effectively dealt with. My gold standard is Jack Ruby. No doubt about it.

But 4 convictions of lying to an FBI agent won’t cut it.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

I agree.

Although I will say that I know a bunch of people who have that many felonies and said they did not do a bit of it. Regardless of the video, DNA, etc (and they took a plea to keep from catching the PFO enhancement) and the fact that they got caught injecting dope by a police officer (all of which is on body cam), to which they didn't do either. They were railroaded. Those weren't even their pants.

JLJONES

Oh, you know my client then. Police keep a pair of "throwdown" pants in their car routinely, you know, for just this occasion.

Me: wouldn't it be easier to just throw down the drugs or gun or whatever?

Client: Nah, then you'd know it was planted.

Me: I see.[/QUOTE]

Straight up! [/QUOTE]

True story.

Can we move it back to the intent of the OP? I was interested in what our prosecutor members (or family) see as the main problem in their jurisdiction. Thanks.

Former prosecutor and currently a presiding municipal court judge. Our issues are minors in possession of alcohol and marijuana, and increasing crimes committed by transients.

Former ALJ. There is a connecting thread (invisible or not) between all offenders. They believe that they live alone in this world and can do as they please.

From there on it's just a bunch of variations of the same theme.

A question for Palm. Where are you a Prosecutor at? Meaning which County are you at? You can email me your answer, it is in my profile. I am in Washtenaw County, and we seem to have OK prosecutors, though they tend to be a bit unwilling to fight hard against politically correct cases. For example, they have refused to prosecute each and every one of the muslim women who have made false police reports about being assaulted by supposedly "Trump supporters", whereas, they have prosecuted the women, both white SJW types who claimed that "Trump supporters" assaulted them.