No. Nothing wrong with saying that every homicide should receive some scrutiny, but clearly some homicides don’t merit full bore murder trials and many others might as well be handled administratively by the state as with a trial. Self defense cases, bank security officers, accidental drownings, traffic accidents … one could make a long list of ways in which people manage to kill each other without being fully culpable of an offense. Which probably explains why most places have quite so many varieties of homicide on their statute books.
We’ve got some prominent cases right now where police officers, who have a rather convoluted social and legal status when inflicting force upon citizens, may have crossed lines between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide. Well …. interpreting the law gets murky at times, and I suspect that’s in the nature of things.
IMO we’re seeing a soup of racism, opportunism, and failure of basic civics understanding.
Grand juries aren’t in the vengeance business or the justice business. They’re in the figuring out if crimes have been committed business. Not every evil or injustice is a crime.
I don’t think they should be in the vengeance business or the justice business but, apparently, a lot of people feel differently. I don’t think that will work out well, especially for black men.
It could be difficult for the District Attorney’s Office, indigent defender program, and the courts to handle every homicide. In the case of police, they should be subject to the same standard as the public, at least. Civil suits are another way to keep the police in-line.
Is there some way to make things more transparent? (IANAL) Look at what really happens. A cop shoots an unarmed person. No one is sure what happened. Ac couple of months later it goes to a grand jury where everything is done in secret. A couple more months later, it is announced that the cops will not be indicted. That is what happens almost 100% of the time. No one really knows what is being said. It is difficult to ignore the fact that the district attorneys and the police actually work together on all other possible crimes, but then in this one special case these colleagues (friends?) are placed in different positions.
Of course, the lawyers will say they can be objective (just like the judges married to politicians say they can remain objective). I suspect hat much of the time they can do it, or make a good try. I sincerely doubt that they are objective and free of bias all of the time.
“Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court explained why grand jury proceedings are secret. According to the Court, which was relying on earlier common law, there are four reasons why grand jury proceedings are secret. Secrecy prevents those who are being investigated from interfering with witnesses and otherwise tampering with the investigation. It encourages witnesses who might be reluctant to testify if their comments were made public to be speak freely when they are brought before the grand jury. It decreases the likelihood that one who is about to be indicted by a grand jury will flee and thereby avoid being brought to trial on those charges. And, finally, it protects innocent persons whose names may be implicated in a grand jury investigation but who will never be indicted.”
Prosecutors always have discretion not to prosecute. Imposing criminal consequences in situations in which justice would not be served will just result in prosecutors not charging the crime.
That really cuts to the heart of the matter, PD. Prosecutorial discretion may, as you suggest, further the cause of justice but that’s not necessarily the case. The greater the degree of discretion allowed the more likely it will be that cases are prosecuted for political reasons.
There’s an analogous issue with police discretion. The police don’t enforce all laws but pick and choose which laws they will enforce. Jaywalking and cyclists running red lights are both against the law but will rarely result in arrests. The greater the discretion the more likely there is to be a miscarriage of justice.
My point here is that there is a tension between a law enforcement system that pursues justice and one that enforces the law.
Our system doesn’t really reflect concerns about non-prosecution. The historical purpose of the grand jury was to restrain over-aggressive prosecutions, defending oneself is a palpable harm. I don’t see how it can be changed to function as a tool to make the prosecutor do something he/she is reluctant to do.
PD- A cop shoots a civilian. Then it is the police who collect and analyze the evidence. Then the DA, who works with those same police on a daily basis, is the one tasked with deciding to prosecute. Assume, arguendo, that instead we have a civilian group collect and analyze evidence. A civilian group sympathetic to the idea that civilians should not be shot if they are unarmed. Assume a civilian attorney, someone with financial ties to the group collecting evidence decides whether to prosecute. Do you think we still have the almost zero rate of indictments? IOW, there is a colossal conflict of interests here at multiple levels. Throw in the fact that almost everyone who is a DA is really a future candidate for another office, usually running on a law and order, tough on crime schtick, and what is the chance that anything but an incredibly egregious police act gets indicted?
No. Nothing wrong with saying that every homicide should receive some scrutiny, but clearly some homicides don’t merit full bore murder trials and many others might as well be handled administratively by the state as with a trial. Self defense cases, bank security officers, accidental drownings, traffic accidents … one could make a long list of ways in which people manage to kill each other without being fully culpable of an offense. Which probably explains why most places have quite so many varieties of homicide on their statute books.
We’ve got some prominent cases right now where police officers, who have a rather convoluted social and legal status when inflicting force upon citizens, may have crossed lines between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide. Well …. interpreting the law gets murky at times, and I suspect that’s in the nature of things.
IMO we’re seeing a soup of racism, opportunism, and failure of basic civics understanding.
Grand juries aren’t in the vengeance business or the justice business. They’re in the figuring out if crimes have been committed business. Not every evil or injustice is a crime.
I don’t think they should be in the vengeance business or the justice business but, apparently, a lot of people feel differently. I don’t think that will work out well, especially for black men.
It could be difficult for the District Attorney’s Office, indigent defender program, and the courts to handle every homicide. In the case of police, they should be subject to the same standard as the public, at least. Civil suits are another way to keep the police in-line.
Is there some way to make things more transparent? (IANAL) Look at what really happens. A cop shoots an unarmed person. No one is sure what happened. Ac couple of months later it goes to a grand jury where everything is done in secret. A couple more months later, it is announced that the cops will not be indicted. That is what happens almost 100% of the time. No one really knows what is being said. It is difficult to ignore the fact that the district attorneys and the police actually work together on all other possible crimes, but then in this one special case these colleagues (friends?) are placed in different positions.
Of course, the lawyers will say they can be objective (just like the judges married to politicians say they can remain objective). I suspect hat much of the time they can do it, or make a good try. I sincerely doubt that they are objective and free of bias all of the time.
Steve
@steve:
“Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court explained why grand jury proceedings are secret. According to the Court, which was relying on earlier common law, there are four reasons why grand jury proceedings are secret. Secrecy prevents those who are being investigated from interfering with witnesses and otherwise tampering with the investigation. It encourages witnesses who might be reluctant to testify if their comments were made public to be speak freely when they are brought before the grand jury. It decreases the likelihood that one who is about to be indicted by a grand jury will flee and thereby avoid being brought to trial on those charges. And, finally, it protects innocent persons whose names may be implicated in a grand jury investigation but who will never be indicted.”
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq7.htm
Prosecutors always have discretion not to prosecute. Imposing criminal consequences in situations in which justice would not be served will just result in prosecutors not charging the crime.
That really cuts to the heart of the matter, PD. Prosecutorial discretion may, as you suggest, further the cause of justice but that’s not necessarily the case. The greater the degree of discretion allowed the more likely it will be that cases are prosecuted for political reasons.
There’s an analogous issue with police discretion. The police don’t enforce all laws but pick and choose which laws they will enforce. Jaywalking and cyclists running red lights are both against the law but will rarely result in arrests. The greater the discretion the more likely there is to be a miscarriage of justice.
My point here is that there is a tension between a law enforcement system that pursues justice and one that enforces the law.
Our system doesn’t really reflect concerns about non-prosecution. The historical purpose of the grand jury was to restrain over-aggressive prosecutions, defending oneself is a palpable harm. I don’t see how it can be changed to function as a tool to make the prosecutor do something he/she is reluctant to do.
PD- A cop shoots a civilian. Then it is the police who collect and analyze the evidence. Then the DA, who works with those same police on a daily basis, is the one tasked with deciding to prosecute. Assume, arguendo, that instead we have a civilian group collect and analyze evidence. A civilian group sympathetic to the idea that civilians should not be shot if they are unarmed. Assume a civilian attorney, someone with financial ties to the group collecting evidence decides whether to prosecute. Do you think we still have the almost zero rate of indictments? IOW, there is a colossal conflict of interests here at multiple levels. Throw in the fact that almost everyone who is a DA is really a future candidate for another office, usually running on a law and order, tough on crime schtick, and what is the chance that anything but an incredibly egregious police act gets indicted?
Steve