Thoughts on the Jena 6

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

If his stentence means that prosecutors can bring basicaly whatever they want in order to plead the charges down at a later time, then his general gist is incorrect.   I agree that Prosecutors bring the most severe charges possible all the time in order to plead them down later - key word being "possible."  Anything unsupported by probable cause is not a possible charge that a prosecutor can bring at all. 

[A.]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

If his stentence means that prosecutors can bring basicaly whatever they want in order to plead the charges down at a later time, then his general gist is incorrect.   I agree that Prosecutors bring the most severe charges possible all the time in order to plead them down later - key word being "possible."  Anything unsupported by probable cause is not a possible charge that a prosecutor can bring at all. 

Of course, but my rule of interpretation for n00b posts is, given two conflicting and equally plausible meanings, to construe them in a way to make the author at least partially correct.  But I realize that strict textualists such as yourself aren't so merciful

[cui bono?]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

If his stentence means that prosecutors can bring basicaly whatever they want in order to plead the charges down at a later time, then his general gist is incorrect.   I agree that Prosecutors bring the most severe charges possible all the time in order to plead them down later - key word being "possible."  Anything unsupported by probable cause is not a possible charge that a prosecutor can bring at all. 

Of course, but my rule of interpretation for n00b posts is, given two conflicting and equally plausible meanings, to construe them in a way to make the author at least partially correct.  But I realize that strict textualists such as yourself aren't so merciful

LOL u stoopid.

I tried to see the other side but a shoe?  I dont see how anyone can make an argument for that.  Just sounds so ridiculous.   

[cui bono?]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

If his stentence means that prosecutors can bring basicaly whatever they want in order to plead the charges down at a later time, then his general gist is incorrect.   I agree that Prosecutors bring the most severe charges possible all the time in order to plead them down later - key word being "possible."  Anything unsupported by probable cause is not a possible charge that a prosecutor can bring at all. 

Of course, but my rule of interpretation for n00b posts is, given two conflicting and equally plausible meanings, to construe them in a way to make the author at least partially correct.  But I realize that strict textualists such as yourself aren't so merciful

I'm the n00b poster? 

 

I wasn't saying it was right for prosecutors to bring especially harsh charges in order to induce a plea to a lower charge--just that they do it all the time.  And if they do it all the time, then this hardly needs to be called an extraordinary case of a racist prosecutor.  He could have simply been doing what prosecutors do all over the country, except here there was racial tension in the backdrop.   

Misconduct doesn't necessarily have to be "extraordinary" or once in a blue moon which seems to be the context in which youre  using it.  Misconduct can be a step or a giant leap over the line.  Here, GIANT LEAP.   Granted, prosecutors plead down but the charges are still in the realm of possibility & not totally "out there" like this one.     

[Miss P]

Of course, but my rule of interpretation for n00b posts is, given two conflicting and equally plausible meanings, to construe them in a way to make the author at least partially correct.  But I realize that strict textualists such as yourself aren't so merciful

lol, you need to learn to discern between n00bs and d-dubbers.

I wasn't saying it was right for prosecutors to bring especially harsh charges in order to induce a plea to a lower charge--just that they do it all the time.  And if they do it all the time, then this hardly needs to be called an extraordinary case of a racist prosecutor.  He could have simply been doing what prosecutors do all over the country, except here there was racial tension in the backdrop.   

As Alci and Sands have rather painstakingly pointed out, there is a difference between bringing the harshest possible charges supported by probable cause and completely unsupported charges.  Unsupported charges are an unethical abuse of discretion (though I don't think the 5th Am. helps much under Galt's or any other theory). 

I imagine there's a good deal of disagreement in this thread about whether, as an empirical matter, prosecutors routinely abuse their discretion in this way.  I would argue that they do, and in this case it was racially motivated.  Moreover, the fact that an abuse is commonplace doesn't make it any less distressing to me.  The Jena 6 protesters are doing a real disservice if their message is primarily that this case is extraordinary.  It's not.

[A.]

Of course, but my rule of interpretation for n00b posts is, given two conflicting and equally plausible meanings, to construe them in a way to make the author at least partially correct.  But I realize that strict textualists such as yourself aren't so merciful

lol, you need to learn to discern between n00bs and d-dubbers.

What's d-dubbing?

I imagine there's a good deal of disagreement in this thread about whether, as an empirical matter, prosecutors routinely abuse their discretion in this way. 

I'm probably with you.

[Miss P]

What's d-dubbing?

Delete-whoring.  Have you noticed Gengis'* new, slender postcount?


*Gengis is like Jesus, no?  This is why this rule is so hard to follow.  Also, did you see that On Language had a thing about apostrophes today?

[aerynn]

In my notes from first semester, 2nd degree murder is defined as killing with "implied malice or gross recklessness." 6 people stomping on someone who is lying prostrate on the ground could support a finding of implied malice or gross recklessness for the safety of the person they were kicking.  Given that the victim sustained a concussion, it is probably partly luck that they didn't break his neck or cause him some brain injury. 

I am not saying that the prosecutor was correct in this case or that justice is served.  I really don't think anyone in this whole story is a hero or in the right as far as I've heard.  But I do think attempted 2nd degree murder is at least supportable from an ethics standpoint.  I have read cases where attempted murder has to be supported by intent to kill, not just attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, but the prosecutor could argue that although they began by intending to just hurt the kid, as they kicked him while he was lying unconscious on the ground they formed an intent to kill him and by continuing to kick, they acted on that intent.

I can also see the argument for shoes as being an aggravating factor.  If they were kicking him in flip flops or something, they would have injured their feet before doing the victim serious mortal injury.  Not so if they are wearing even slightly protective footwear.

[A.]

What's d-dubbing?

Delete-whoring.  Have you noticed Gengis'* new, slender postcount?


*Gengis is like Jesus, no?  This is why this rule is so hard to follow.  Also, did you see that On Language had a thing about apostrophes today?

Ahh OK.

See, I don't believe that the S&W rule really makes sense either.  I say all or nothing, and am now a fan of all.  I would have said Gengis's (or, even more simply, wumpy's).  What's On Language?

[Miss P]

What's On Language?

Safire's column in the Times Magazine.  It seemed like something that would float your boat.