Timeline for Is it true that only prosecutors can 'cut a deal' with criminals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | RonJohn | @Kevin sure you can: it's called "explaining". | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Kevin | @RonJohn: If you can't see how "Don't assume [...]" falls into that category, then I am unable to help you understand. | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | RonJohn | @Kevin (1) District Attorneys are elected officials; the Assistant District Attorneys who go to court and prosecute 99.9% of cases are not elected. (2) What does that have to do with " instructing (you) on what political beliefs I should or should not hold"? | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Kevin | @RonJohn: Prosecutors are (at the state level, which is what you seem to be describing) elected officials. Their level of competence is a political matter. | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | RonJohn | @Kevin political beliefs??? Rereading my comments, I don't see where I "instruct(ed) (you) on what political beliefs (you) should or should not hold". | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | Kevin | @RonJohn: Would you kindly refrain from instructing me on what political beliefs I should or should not hold? | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | RonJohn | @Kevin "I was assuming". Don't assume. And don't assume that all prosecutors know that all their cases are weak, or that their rhetorical skills aren't strong enough to overcome what they know is a weak case, or that the defense attorney's rhetorical skills are better than the prosecutor's skills. | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | Kevin | @RonJohn: Who said anything about a weak prosecution? If the prosecution puts on a weak case in the first instance, then of course the defense has less of a need to put on a strong case in response. If the prosecution's case is especially weak, the defense may even prefer to put on a weak response, because it shows that they are refusing to take the prosecution's argument seriously. But in my comment, I was assuming we were talking about the usual scenario in which prosecutors prefer to bring strong cases rather than weak cases. | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | RonJohn | @Kevin you've obviously never been on a jury. From experience as a juror in deep red Trump-land, I promise that it's easy to poke holes in a weak case. | |
| 5 hours ago | answer | added | ohwilleke | timeline score: 6 | |
| 6 hours ago | comment | added | littleadv | Yes, what I mean is that the prosecution's story has to be "this guy did it, and here's why", while the defense's doesn't have to be "no, he didn't". It may be "That guy did it", or "who said anyone did anything?", or "that's not a crime", or "he's mentally ill and is not responsible for his actions" etc. | |
| 7 hours ago | comment | added | Kevin | @littleadv: That is the theory, but in the actual courtroom, what happens is that the prosecution tells a story, then the defense tells a story, and the jury decides which story they believe. While the defense is notionally entitled to tell no story at all and simply poke holes in the prosecution's story, actually doing so in practice makes for a weak defense because the jury will struggle to envision a plausible alternative version of events, as is arguably required in many jurisdictions. | |
| 7 hours ago | comment | added | littleadv | In most countries, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. If the prosecution thinks someone is guilty - they have to prove it. Defense doesn't need to prove innocence, only show that the prosecution lacks the ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. | |
| 8 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 8 hours ago | history | reopened | bdb484 united-states Users with the united-states badge or a synonym can single-handedly close united-states questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. | ||
| 11 hours ago | history | closed |
Justin Cave littleadv Trish Joe W Mindwin Remember Monica |
Duplicate of Can police offer an “immune interview”? | |
| 12 hours ago | comment | added | Joe W | Why would the defense care if someone is innocent or not? Their job is to defend someone of the charges and if possible get them found not guilty regardless of if they think the person is innocent or not. | |
| 12 hours ago | answer | added | Jen | timeline score: 9 | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | ConanTheGerbil | @SJuan - I'm sure the prosecution wouldn't charge someone THEY think is innocent, but the defence might think they're innocent! The issue is that the prosecution have little cause to persuade an witness for the defence to testify | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | SJuan76 | So you are suposing that prosecution would charge someone they think is innocent? Just for the sake of it? Also, prosecutors might not be forced to offer immunity, but they have an obligation to disclose to the defense that such a witness exists. | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | ConanTheGerbil | @SJuan76 - If all the witness can do is prevent the prosecution from convicting it's prime suspect (without actually suggesting who's really guilty) then the prosecution may prefer him not to appear? | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | SJuan76 | Why wouldn't the prosecution want the witness if it points to the true criminal being aprehended? A different issue would be the prosecution dismissing the witness as unreliable; and that could be in part because the evidence they have at the moment bias them against the husband. But it would not be, at least in theory, because the prosecution wants to condemn the husband no matter if he is guilty or not. | |
| 15 hours ago | history | edited | ConanTheGerbil | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
update to explain why this is a new question
|
| 16 hours ago | review | Close votes | |||
| 11 hours ago | |||||
| 17 hours ago | history | edited | ConanTheGerbil | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited to avoid make this a question about law rather than fairness
|
| 17 hours ago | history | asked | ConanTheGerbil | CC BY-SA 4.0 |