Democrat DA Orders No More Arrests for Breaking-Entering, Shoplifting, Property Destruction, Etc.

[Dogmaphobe]

Come on, folks -- all she is trying to do here is to keep solidly Democratic voters out of jail.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along .

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course I know what default means. All the things on that list can still be prosecuted if a more experienced supervisor feels it is proper. All they have to do is ask. Taking those decisions out of the hands of inexperienced people sounds like a good thing to me. You think a more experienced supervisor will let people go when they should be prosecuted?

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

You are once again avoiding the point: From now on in Boston, the default policy will be to not prosecute such crimes, whereas in the rest of the country the default is the opposite. I again remind you that in the OP I noted that the policy allows for deviation from the default but only with a supervisor's permission. So only if a supervisor--senior ADA or the DA--agrees to deviate from the default will any of those crimes be prosecuted, which is the exact opposite of the practice in the rest of the country.

How can any normal, rational person not see that absurdity, not to mention the danger, of this new policy?

You think it's absurd for low level people to check with their supervisor before they take legal action that will effect someone for life. That's just insane.

You keep hiding behind this non-responsive argument and keep avoiding the point. Let me repeat the point: Unlike everywhere else in the country, the default response in Boston when someone who commits one of those crimes is caught is now to not prosecute or to reduce it to a civil case (which of course comes with no jail time and no criminal record). THAT's the point.

But, let's take a look at your argument. Why would a first-level prosecutor need to check with a supervisor about prosecuting someone who has, say, committed breaking and entering and who resisted arrest when they were caught? Why? Why should a supervisor need to get involved in deciding whether or not to prosecute such an offender? Why?

Your silly argument assumes that every first-level prosecutor is incapable of making a sound decision about such a case.

And, of course, now, in Boston, instead of that first-level prosecutor needing supervisor permission to drop such a case, he or she needs supervisor permission to prosecute the case.

It is just amazing that you can't see how absurd and dangerous Rollins' policy is.

Some people might not have their lives ruined by an unnecessary prosecution. Yes, I can see how dangerous that might be.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I ask yet again: Liberals, given Rollins' known views on prosecuting such crimes, given her memo, and given that deviation from the default policy will require permission from a senior prosecutor, what percentage of these crimes do you think will be prosecuted? I think reasonable people on both sides would agree that, at the very most, 50% of those crimes will be prosecuted.

But let's go an extra 10% and say that 60% of the crimes in her memo will be prosecuted. Okay, how would you like to live and/or raise a family in a county where 40% of the people who commit breaking and entering, shoplifting, larceny, trespassing, destruction of property, receiving stolen goods, and resisting arrest are either not prosecuted at all or have their cases turned into civil issues and thus suffer no criminal penalties and incur no criminal record?

 

[BULLDOG]

And I ask yet again: Liberals, given Rollins' known views on prosecuting such crimes, given her memo, and given that deviation from the default policy will require permission from a senior prosecutor, what percentage of these crimes do you think will be prosecuted? I think reasonable people on both sides would agree that, at the very most, 50% of those crimes will be prosecuted.

But let's go an extra 10% and say that 60% of the crimes in her memo will be prosecuted. Okay, how would you like to live and/or raise a family in a county where 40% of the people who commit breaking and entering, shoplifting, larceny, trespassing, destruction of property, receiving stolen goods, and resisting arrest are either not prosecuted at all or have their cases turned into civil issues and thus suffer no criminal penalties and incur no criminal record?

What a stupid remark. You're saying that experienced prosecutors make the wrong decision to prosecute at least 40% of the time, but inexperienced prosecutors never unnecessarily prosecute a case. Pretty goofy there bubba.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I ask yet again: Liberals, given Rollins' known views on prosecuting such crimes, given her memo, and given that deviation from the default policy will require permission from a senior prosecutor, what percentage of these crimes do you think will be prosecuted? I think reasonable people on both sides would agree that, at the very most, 50% of those crimes will be prosecuted.

But let's go an extra 10% and say that 60% of the crimes in her memo will be prosecuted. Okay, how would you like to live and/or raise a family in a county where 40% of the people who commit breaking and entering, shoplifting, larceny, trespassing, destruction of property, receiving stolen goods, and resisting arrest are either not prosecuted at all or have their cases turned into civil issues and thus suffer no criminal penalties and incur no criminal record?

What a stupid remark. You're saying that experienced prosecutors make the wrong decision to prosecute at least 40% of the time, but inexperienced prosecutors never unnecessarily prosecute a case. Pretty goofy there bubba.

More dishonest evasion, or else you suffer from a severe reading comprehension problem.

I ask a simple question, and you come back with more of this dishonest sophistry about experienced vs. inexperienced prosecutors. Again, either you can't read or you are just being dishonest.

Let me pose the simple question again: What percentage of those crimes do you think will be prosecuted by Rollins' DA office? It's a really simple, straightforward question. It has nothing to do with the experience or competence of the prosecutors. It is merely asking what percentage of those crimes you believe will be prosecuted by Rollins' DA office.

In the rest of the country, prosecutors decide, for various reasons, not to prosecute or to refer to civil courts about 15%, give or take, of the criminal cases they deal with. What percentage of the crimes in the Rollins memo do you think Rollins' DA office will decide to prosecute, since in her county the new default is NOT to prosecute?

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I ask yet again: Liberals, given Rollins' known views on prosecuting such crimes, given her memo, and given that deviation from the default policy will require permission from a senior prosecutor, what percentage of these crimes do you think will be prosecuted? I think reasonable people on both sides would agree that, at the very most, 50% of those crimes will be prosecuted.

But let's go an extra 10% and say that 60% of the crimes in her memo will be prosecuted. Okay, how would you like to live and/or raise a family in a county where 40% of the people who commit breaking and entering, shoplifting, larceny, trespassing, destruction of property, receiving stolen goods, and resisting arrest are either not prosecuted at all or have their cases turned into civil issues and thus suffer no criminal penalties and incur no criminal record?

What a stupid remark. You're saying that experienced prosecutors make the wrong decision to prosecute at least 40% of the time, but inexperienced prosecutors never unnecessarily prosecute a case. Pretty goofy there bubba.

More dishonest evasion, or else you suffer from a severe reading comprehension problem.

I ask a simple question, and you come back with more of this dishonest sophistry about experienced vs. inexperienced prosecutors. Again, either you can't read or you are just being dishonest.

Let me pose the simple question again: What percentage of those crimes do you think will be prosecuted by Rollins' DA office? It's a really simple, straightforward question. It has nothing to do with the experience or competence of the prosecutors. It is merely asking what percentage of those crimes you believe will be prosecuted by Rollins' DA office.

In the rest of the country, prosecutors decide, for various reasons, not to prosecute or to refer to civil courts about 15%, give or take, of the criminal cases they deal with. What percentage of the crimes in the Rollins memo do you think Rollins' DA office will decide to prosecute, since in her county the new default is NOT to prosecute?

Well, I see "Bulldog" declined to answer the simple question of what percentage of cases she thinks the crimes in the memo will be prosecuted by the Rollins DA office. You see, even if one wants to take a great leap of faith and assume that the DA's office will prosecute 70% of those cases, that means that 30% of the people who commit those crimes will either have their cases dismissed entirely or will have them referred to civil courts, where there is no criminal penalty.

Bulldog keeps expressing concern about people's lives being "ruined by an unnecessary prosecution." Well, gosh, if a person commits one or more of the crimes on the list, why would it be "unnecessary" to prosecute?! And how about the victims--you know, the people whose homes are broken into, the people whose property is damaged or destroyed, the people whose money or property is stolen, etc.? Do they matter?