RangerDave wrote:
Yeah, that was an honest question, Midgen.
And Elm - The jury is empaneled by the government, and the its judgments are given weight by government force in the form of prison and fines. I prefer to have multiple checks before that force is brought to bear, starting with a person (the cop) who can choose to warn instead of arrest, a person (the DA) who can choose no to prosecute, people (the jury) who can choose to acquit, and a person (the judge) who can choose to reduce or waive sentence. In short, I don't see discretion on the part of cops, prosecutors and judges as giving extra power to the government; I see it as a means of limiting the frequency and severity with which government exercises its power.
Giving discretion to the enforcing body only yields corruption, it yields no true positive in the long run.
Laws must be clear and enforcement must be consistent for justice to prevail.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
