What is the definition of real criminals being used here?
I guess I'm using to mean... people who committed crimes.
I'll even narrow it down to felonies. I know too many misdemeanants who've gone on to make something of themselves.
What is the definition of real criminals being used here?
I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?I guess I'm using to mean... people who committed crimes.
I'll even narrow it down to felonies. I know too many misdemeanants who've gone on to make something of themselves.
I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?
I ask, because I imagine most of us have broken one of the plethora of laws we have. Are we all then criminals?
In that area, I would have to see what was being forgiven and what the crime supposedly was that they are trying to get the other guy for. I am not as trusting as you when it comes to politicians making decisions on who to charge and whom to let go. The one that brings more publicity is the one they will want to prosecute.Totally different rabbit hole, but things like ordinance violations (and even some infractions, I think) are "laws" that don't make criminals when they are broken. They are in the nature of a civil action.
Areas like campaign finance are chock full of "unlawful" acts that create civil penalties (like fines), but do not create criminals (meaning jail time). Now, there are SOME campaign finance laws that do create criminals. I think those are the ones at issue here. And elsewhere.
In that area, I would have to see what was being forgiven and what the crime supposedly was that they are trying to get the other guy for. I am not as trusting as you when it comes to politicians making decisions on who to charge and whom to let go. The one that brings more publicity is the one they will want to prosecute.
To use a mob example, which seems to be where we most often hear about this type of thing. Prosecute the guy that ordered the hit, rather than the guy that pulled the trigger?Having seen the process first hand, at least in my experience, that isn't the main motivation. Rather, it is to net the most responsible criminal. If that brings publicity, then so be it, but that is the effect, not the cause.
To use a mob example, which seems to be where we most often hear about this type of thing. Prosecute the guy that ordered the hit, rather than the guy that pulled the trigger?
Having seen the process first hand, at least in my experience, that isn't the main motivation. Rather, it is to net the most responsible criminal. If that brings publicity, then so be it, but that is the effect, not the cause.
Prosecutors cannot be sued for injuries caused by their own misconduct. For example, even if a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence in violation of professional ethics and a defendant’s constitutional rights, and this willful misconduct results in an innocent person spending decades behind bars for a crime of which they are subsequently exonerated—the prosecutor remains immune from civil liability.
The policy of absolute prosecutorial immunity comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court, which took 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s command that “every person” who, acting under color of law, violates the rights of another, “shall be liable to the party injured,” and added “except for prosecutors.” Was the Court’s originalist reasoning sound? Would a different policy open the floodgates and subject prosecutors to endless litigation, as the majority feared? And are there really other ways of ensuring proper accountability for some of the most powerful actors in our system of government?
Blasphemer!or, maybe Paula Jones is.
Totally different rabbit hole, but things like ordinance violations (and even some infractions, I think) are "laws" that don't make criminals when they are broken. They are in the nature of a civil action.
Areas like campaign finance are chock full of "unlawful" acts that create civil penalties (like fines), but do not create criminals (meaning jail time). Now, there are SOME campaign finance laws that do create criminals. I think those are the ones at issue here. And elsewhere.
There sure are a lot of armed agents enforcing these non-law "ordinances" and regs.
And it sure as heck doesn't seem that civil to search my home, pry into my life, and cost me a vast sum of money not to mention reputation and possible livelihood.