Screaming for Vengeance Against Soros Stooges

 

In an earlier Ricochet post, “The Waukesha Murderer Is a Product of the Left’s Grievance Industry,” two members commented:

He is a monster, but much worse than him are the prosecutors and judges who are allegedly rational, but fail to keep monsters off of the streets because they think that these monsters are victims rather than victimizers.

We must insist that those people are also monsters. And yes, worse monsters.

Yes. AND. These prosecutors must be subjected to equal or more severe sanction, punishment. Or we, “conservatives,” are just posturing. There are a great many local, state, and federal officials who must be at least civilly tried and stripped of all assets, down to single-wide trailer and $2,000 vehicle level with no savings and all assets hidden in family/friendly shelters clawed back. If this takes a constitutional amendment to overcome the nine self-serving, black-robed masters, so be it. Generate the same level of lawfare, the same pushing of every vaguely colorable legal theory, to harry, to bankrupt, to punish by process and possibly by result. Do it all and always in the name of the children, the children murdered by Soros’ soldiers, the street thugs that are used to keep poor communities down, to keep them from getting ideas about personal, economic, and political independence, agency.

Oh, and George Soros must either be stripped of all assets, including those concealed in various “non-profit” fronts, or deported to a central European country that wants to try him for seeking to drag them back into socialist serfdom. It was one of Soros’ paid-for prosecutors who arranged the $1,000 bail two days before his latest violent crime.

Milwaukee’s District Attorney John Chisholm, one of a number of DAs around the country whose campaigns Mr. Soros has helped bankroll, has worked for the last 15 years to change the city’s approach to incarceration. In 2018, he tweeted how Milwaukee was making a commitment not to keep individuals held on cash bail in jail. When the pandemic hit, Milwaukee’s “woke” Community Justice Council recommended criminals needed to be let out of jail immediately. The city obliged, reducing its jail population by about 40%.

And what kind of predators do Soros stooges set loose on us, especially on the most vulnerable communities of black- and brown-skinned Americans? Here is a summary of Darrell Brooks, Jr. from Heavy, not a right-wing source:

In court during Brooks’ first appearance on November 23, 2021, the district attorney of Waukesha County, Sue Opper, revealed that Brooks also had a family violence arrest in Georgia while he was out on $500 bail in the first Milwaukee County case, which accused him of shooting toward a family member’s car after an argument. In addition, he had an active warrant from Nevada for non-compliance as a registered sex offender for the past five years. Despite those things, when he was accused of trying to run a woman over at a gas station a few days before the parade tragedy, he was released on $1,000 bail.

But, hey, you have to break a few eggs to scrabble up a socialist omelet. Just ask Soros stooge John Chisholm:

“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody?” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Journal Sentinel. “You bet. Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Do not accept, do not fall for, the butt-covering paper the Soros’ stooge John Chisholm hung out after he and his paymaster were exposed to Americans’ outrage. Claims that mistakes were made in the bail recommendation and pretending that this was actually inconsistent with Soros stooges’ real policy must be tested against Soros stooges and their street soldiers real record.

Demand real justice. Demand vengeance from every Republican primary candidate. Refuse to support any RepubliCAN’T who trash talks vengeance and ducks hard promises upfront. Refuse to be fooled again, heads must roll even if it isn’t nice. Will we trample out the grapes of wrath into wine before they turn to bitter vinegar?

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 62 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    The Milwaukee County District Attorney was reelected on the 2020 presidential general election date, however, he ran unopposed. 

    The Republican Party could not be bothered to put up and support a candidate, and John Chisholm did not even have a Democrat primary challenger.

    So, these voters could make no real choice. It is not their fault.

    This situation happens due to years of lefty decisions by the voters. Through apathy or general moral decrepitude the Republican party grew weaker to the point of no longer being able to put up a fight. The ideal time to resist was a long time ago. The sins of the fathers have been visited on the sons. It is so in major metropolitan areas across the country, including the one in which I reside. The process of taking back ground lost will be difficult. The deep state belongs to the left.

    • #31
  2. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    The Milwaukee County District Attorney was reelected on the 2020 presidential general election date, however, he ran unopposed.

    The Republican Party could not be bothered to put up and support a candidate, and John Chisholm did not even have a Democrat primary challenger.

    So, these voters could make no real choice. It is not their fault.

    This situation happens due to years of lefty decisions by the voters. Through apathy or general moral decrepitude the Republican party grew weaker to the point of no longer being able to put up a fight. The ideal time to resist was a long time ago. The sins of the fathers have been visited on the sons. It is so in major metropolitan areas across the country, including the one in which I reside. The process of taking back ground lost will be difficult. The deep state belongs to the left.

    AND. Taking territory back, rescuing the hostages, can happen very quickly. 

    The liberal-leftist majority in the San Francisco area will likely throw three members of their board of education out in a recall election, February 15, 2022.

    • #32
  3. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    See also the City Journal article, “Guaranteed Murder:”

    The Milwaukee district attorney told the truth when he “guaranteed” that this kind of reform would lead to murder. Woke prosecutors are angry now not because six people are dead and scores more maimed in Waukesha but because one of their own told the truth about the consequences of these policies. And the only safe guarantee going forward is that this type of bail reform—along with de-prosecution, de-carceration, and de-funding of police—will lead to more mayhem. How much more, one wonders, before prosecutors like Chisholm recognize that reality has begun to “invalidate the overall approach”?

    • #33
  4. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    See also the City Journal article, “Guaranteed Murder:”

    The Milwaukee district attorney told the truth when he “guaranteed” that this kind of reform would lead to murder. Woke prosecutors are angry now not because six people are dead and scores more maimed in Waukesha but because one of their own told the truth about the consequences of these policies. And the only safe guarantee going forward is that this type of bail reform—along with de-prosecution, de-carceration, and de-funding of police—will lead to more mayhem. How much more, one wonders, before prosecutors like Chisholm recognize that reality has begun to “invalidate the overall approach”?

    It is a mistake to think that the Soros DA’s were unaware that their approach would lead to more crime. That is not a bug-it’s a feature. If leftist political control closes the jails, then that prevents racist, capitalist societies from insulating themselves from the real costs and consequences (inequality, poverty, crime) of their inherent injustice by use of incarceration. When crime becomes the new normal, then those societies will have no choice but to implement social justice to stop crime.

    As with most totalitarian ambitions, they would greatly prefer that the frogs in the pot don’t notice the temperature rise until it’s too late. Willie Horton and Darrell Brooks and the looting of every store in San Francisco are only a problem for being too much, too soon. They would prefer people be pummeled into submission by a steadier new normal of crime, like Mayor Dinkins’ NYC. Then implement social justice reform as they see fit.

    • #34
  5. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    It is a mistake to think that the Soros DA’s were unaware that their approach would lead to more crime. That is not a bug-it’s a feature. If leftist political control closes the jails, then that prevents racist, capitalist societies from insulating themselves from the real costs and consequences (inequality, poverty, crime) of their inherent injustice by use of incarceration.

    I think you have got this part of the military doctrine of the modern totalitarian movements exactly correct. (I include both the right-Hegelians and the left-Hegelians as modern–i.e., post-Enlightenment–totalitarian movements.)

    When crime becomes the new normal, then those societies will have no choice but to implement social justice to stop crime.

    I don’t think this is worded quite right precisely enough, with “society” being the agent. The agents in communist/Fascist ideology are classes.  The plan is not for the ruling capitalist and bourgeois classes to finally respond by implementing the necessary solution. Just the opposite: the plan is for these doomed classes (doomed by the inexorable tide of a mystical force that they call variously either “History” or “Progress”) to respond to the chaos created by the political subversion and organized violence ever more harshly, until the oppressed classes throw them over.

    • #35
  6. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    It is a mistake to think that the Soros DA’s were unaware that their approach would lead to more crime. That is not a bug-it’s a feature. If leftist political control closes the jails, then that prevents racist, capitalist societies from insulating themselves from the real costs and consequences (inequality, poverty, crime) of their inherent injustice by use of incarceration.

    I think you have got this part of the military doctrine of the modern totalitarian movements exactly correct. (I include both the right-Hegelians and the left-Hegelians as modern–i.e., post-Enlightenment–totalitarian movements.)

    When crime becomes the new normal, then those societies will have no choice but to implement social justice to stop crime.

    I don’t think this is worded quite right precisely enough, with “society” being the agent. The agents in communist/Fascist ideology are classes. The plan is not for the ruling capitalist and bourgeois classes to finally respond by implementing the necessary solution. Just the opposite: the plan is for these doomed classes (doomed by the inexorable tide of a mystical force that they call variously either “History” or “Progress”) to respond to the chaos created by the political subversion and organized violence ever more harshly, until the oppressed classes throw them over.

    That seems so five minutes ago. In the woke universe, the lines are ideational and the proletariat increasingly tends to be on the wrong side. 

    Mussolini invented fascism and relied more on restoration of national greatness precisely because that workers-of-the-unite crapola is a political loser in a society where the great majority are middle class or aspire/ expect to be middle class. 

    In contrast, Soros’ target is the middle class, not Buffet, Bezos and Zuckerberg or himself. The normals are the enemy. We do not willingly yield all power to the Enlightened. Family, religion, subsidiarity, checks and balances, and separation of powers are enemy bastions. The poor are useful but not the real intended beneficiaries.

    The ultimate goal is, of course, the same for all these perversions: absolute rule by an elite who claim special insight into what’s best for the rest of us. The rhetoric is whatever works in the moment, the pretense of elevating/protecting victims is invariably a staple.

    • #36
  7. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    In contrast, Soros’ target is the middle class, not Buffet, Bezos and Zuckerberg or himself. The normals are the enemy. We do not willingly yield all power to the Enlightened. Family, religion, subsidiarity, checks and balances, and separation of powers are enemy bastions. The poor are useful but not the real intended beneficiaries.

    The ultimate goal is, of course, the same for all these perversions: absolute rule by an elite who claim special insight into what’s best for the rest of us. The rhetoric is whatever works in the moment, the pretense of elevating/protecting victims is invariably a staple.

    Agreed. This is being done to us, by the concerted effort of an identifiable group of individuals. That they find a weak and corrupt society already primed for herding and slaughter is true but beside the point. (Never mind that their friends’ patient effort corrupted the herd in the first place.)

    • #37
  8. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    In contrast, Soros’ target is the middle class, not Buffet, Bezos and Zuckerberg or himself. The normals are the enemy. We do not willingly yield all power to the Enlightened. Family, religion, subsidiarity, checks and balances, and separation of powers are enemy bastions. The poor are useful but not the real intended beneficiaries.

    The ultimate goal is, of course, the same for all these perversions: absolute rule by an elite who claim special insight into what’s best for the rest of us. The rhetoric is whatever works in the moment, the pretense of elevating/protecting victims is invariably a staple.

    Agreed. This is being done to us, by the concerted effort of an identifiable group of individuals. That they find a weak and corrupt society already primed for herding and slaughter is true but beside the point. (Never mind that their friends’ patient effort corrupted the herd in the first place.)

    Here is my analysis.  Soros is playing his part in the familiar strategy of the left.  It is not some new strategy.

    • Through the successful execution of his program, the legal institution of the municipal/state prosecutor has been infiltrated by many ideological allies of the communists.
    • The next (current) step is for the new subversive District Attorneys to carry out their mission, which is to create social chaos by
      • failing to protect society from crime, and instead
      • actively promoting crime.
    • The next step of the plan is for the doomed, demoralized, weak bourgeois class to react not by courageously defending (a) itself and (b) the “proles”, by ejecting the communist DAs according to existing means, but rather by implementing harsh measures in violation of its principles. Concerning the “proles”:
      • The supposedly pre-ordained members of the prole class are simply individual fathers and mothers seeking to make a better life for themselves today and their children tomorrow.
      • They are trying to do that by the same proven means used by all prior generations under liberalism have done: taking  advantage of their freedoms and property rights, and joining the bourgeoisie or capitalist class.
      • As long as the poorer people of today have the chance to attain, in truth, what Soros and the other communists cannot give them but have falsely promised them, this bloodthirsty, power-obsessed gang have no chance of achieving their goal of absolute power.
    • The next step is for the main victims of both (a) the original subversive action (creating crime mostly in poor neighborhoods), and (b) the gullible bourgeoisie reaction, to rise up and exterminate the Church, the capitalists, and the bourgeois class.
    • #38
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The ultimate goal is, of course, the same for all these perversions: absolute rule by an elite who claim special insight into what’s best for the rest of us. The rhetoric is whatever works in the moment, the pretense of elevating/protecting victims is invariably a staple.

    It doesn’t even matter if that’s the goal. It’s what people do with political power. Those who already think they are a special ruling elite don’t have to get themselves corrupted first, so they have a head start. They have no pesky scruples to be overcome. 

    • #39
  10. Thursby Member
    Thursby
    @Thursby

    Stad (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown:

    Just ask Soros stooge John Chisholm:

    “Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody?” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Journal Sentinel. “You bet. Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

    Then what the heck does invalidate the overall approach? How many people does a whacko have to kill until you realize you screwed up?

     

    Why not spread liability for misbehavior on bail to the judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor?  They agree to the terms, after all.

    • #40
  11. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Thursby (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown:

    Just ask Soros stooge John Chisholm:

    “Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody?” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Journal Sentinel. “You bet. Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

    Then what the heck does invalidate the overall approach? How many people does a whacko have to kill until you realize you screwed up?

    Why not spread liability for misbehavior on bail to the judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor? They agree to the terms, after all.

    Well worth serious consideration. If the cash value of the bail does not cover the reasonably expected civil damages, including punitives, than drop that on the professional insurance of the lawyers, including the black robed rulers!

    • #41
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Why is risk balancing cost and benefit in this instance bad but would be good for no Covid lockdowns, for eg?

    • #42
  13. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Why is risk balancing cost and benefit in this instance bad but would be good for no Covid lockdowns, for eg?

    Who is the risk balanced upon, and who gets the benefits? 

    • #43
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Why is risk balancing cost and benefit in this instance bad but would be good for no Covid lockdowns, for eg?

    Who is the risk balanced upon, and who gets the benefits?

    In both instances the public.

    • #44
  15. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Why is risk balancing cost and benefit in this instance bad but would be good for no Covid lockdowns, for eg?

    Who is the risk balanced upon, and who gets the benefits?

    In both instances the public.

    The benefits here go to the governing elite, while the risk falls entirely on the public, and wildly disproportionately on Black communities. We are only seeing some limited reaction now that there are spillover cases hurting the suburban middle class.

    • #45
  16. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    What’s the benefit to the ruling elite? And don’t communities benefit from a larger proportion of their non-violent offenders reintegrating successfully and without recidivism?

    • #46
  17. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What’s the benefit to the ruling elite? And don’t communities benefit from a larger proportion of their non-violent offenders reintegrating successfully and without recidivism?

    We aren’t talking about non violent offenders.

    And chaos (which releasing violent offenders does) leads to people trading more freedom for more government. Chaos feeds the government.

    This is why broken homes have far more government involvement (that was sought by all parties) than nuclear families. Chaos demands an authority figure to step in an make order out of it. The more chaotic, the more the authority figure has the power to dictate.

    • #47
  18. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Why is risk balancing cost and benefit in this instance bad but would be good for no Covid lockdowns, for eg?

    Who is the risk balanced upon, and who gets the benefits?

    In both instances the public.

    Think less in terms of public and more in terms of innocent vs guilty.

    Being lenient on the guilty and forcing the innocent to bear the burden is placing compassion in the wrong place.

    With Covid, there is no guilty or innocent. It is nature vs mankind. Nature is the enemy and we are fighting it… or learning to live with it. Being compassionate to humankind is what results in cost/benefit analysis.

    • #48
  19. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What’s the benefit to the ruling elite? And don’t communities benefit from a larger proportion of their non-violent offenders reintegrating successfully and without recidivism?

    To the second question, the answer is “no,” despite that you phrased it in a way that assumes something that you’d like us to believe but is difficult to find in evidence anywhere. 

    The reasons that communities don’t benefit from reintegration is that 1) it is relatively rare, and 2) one recidivist outweighs the impact of ten reintegrated offenders.

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What’s the benefit to the ruling elite? And don’t communities benefit from a larger proportion of their non-violent offenders reintegrating successfully and without recidivism?

    To the second question, the answer is “no,” despite that you phrased it in a way that assumes something that you’d like us to believe but is difficult to find in evidence anywhere.

    The reasons that communities don’t benefit from reintegration is that 1) it is relatively rare, and 2) one recidivist outweighs the impact of ten reintegrated offenders.

    If it’s that rare why do they do it?  

    • #50
  21. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    What’s the benefit to the ruling elite? And don’t communities benefit from a larger proportion of their non-violent offenders reintegrating successfully and without recidivism?

    To the second question, the answer is “no,” despite that you phrased it in a way that assumes something that you’d like us to believe but is difficult to find in evidence anywhere.

    The reasons that communities don’t benefit from reintegration is that 1) it is relatively rare, and 2) one recidivist outweighs the impact of ten reintegrated offenders.

    If it’s that rare why do they do it?

    Because the left is bad at statistics? I don’t know. It feels good. And to some people, feeling right is more important than thinking or acting right. The latter two are far more difficult and don’t produce any dopamine hits and those who engage in the latter two with any kind of sensitivity can sometimes suffer for the hard choices they make.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    • #52
  23. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Maybe a bit of that, too. People in general (not all, but most) only see what is right in front of them. When someone is murdered, the trial focuses on the person accused of committing the murder. People see him. The murdered is an abstract person and people find it ultimately easier to deal with the concrete than the abstract.

    Our judicial system further makes victims abstract by using the state (or “the people”) as a stand-in for those wronged. The court scene is never victim vs accused. It is state vs accused. The state is abstracted and no one ever sees the victims as humans that have been wronged.

    And so the narrators and defense are able to do whatever they want to the accused. He can be evil, he can be sympathetic. The more sympathetic, the more people want leniency… because the victims don’t matter.

    But the victims do matter. Were they wronged? Did they suffer loss? How does this loss affect them? Not only are they not presented, they also are deprived of the opportunity to extend grace or mercy to the accused. But it is not the government’s job to extend mercy on behalf of the people. Their job is to enforce the law. If we want mercy in our judicial system, then we should bring the accuser and the wronged back to the courtroom so that THEY can administer mercy as THEY see fit.

    • #53
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want mercy in our judicial system, then we should bring the accuser and the wronged back to the courtroom so that THEY can administer mercy as THEY see fit.

    That’s Sharia. Did you know?

    • #54
  25. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want mercy in our judicial system, then we should bring the accuser and the wronged back to the courtroom so that THEY can administer mercy as THEY see fit.

    That’s Sharia. Did you know?

    I knew it was in Islamic law. It’s also in Jewish law. It’s ancient law.

    • #55
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Stina (View Comment):

    The court scene is never victim vs accused. It is state vs accused.

    I have the other take on this.

    I’ve been thinking about this Rittenhouse trial, and the prosecutor, and then the Arbery trial, and, again, the politicization of the judicial system.  And I realized a big mistake I was making.  I asked that some prosecutors, say in a small town, actually know the suspects, their knowledge of the character of the potential defendants should play a part in the investigative and prosecutorial processes.  And a lawyer, I think, a prosecutor, said that the prosecutor never meets the defendant (though he will see him sitting silently in court once all has been decided regarding the prosecution’s planning).

    And I realized two things.  One is that the victim (even a living victim) is not the accuser — ever — it is the prosecutor who accuses the defendant.  The victim may say some specific words, but it is the prosecutor who actually plans and makes every accusation.  And the second is that along with this the defendant never gets to cross examine the accuser — the prosecutor is the actual accuser, and is supposed to be impartial, above any personal motivations.  Clearly this was not true in the Chauvin case, or the Rittenhouse case, and I suspect it is general practice for prosecutors to pick and choose words that are intended to emotionally sway the jury rather than present the bare facts.  (Like pointing a rifle at the jury, just so they know what fear is.)

    When trials are politicized, and are changed to be about the pursuit of social justice which is not codified within the law (or about prosecutors racking up career wins) then the pursuit of justice — the picking of defendants, the decision how to prosecute, the manner in which evidence is presented, and the purpose and the social aspects of the outcome — and the purpose of justice is changed as well.

    I’ve always heard that the trial system was designed to make prosecutions hard, that ten guilty men would go free rather than have one man wrongly convicted, or something like that.  The effect of politicized trails and the choices in whom to prosecute is that now prosecution seems to be more about guiding policy than seeking individual justice.

    • #56
  27. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I’ve always heard that the trial system was designed to make prosecutions hard, that ten guilty men would go free rather than have one man wrongly convicted, or something like that.  The effect of politicized trails and the choices in whom to prosecute is that now prosecution seems to be more about guiding policy than seeking individual justice.

    I’d like to know when our judicial system switched to impartial prosecutors, because the bill of rights is the right to face your accuser. The only place that actually happens is the civil court, so it’s odd to me that we separate the two. We have an inconsistent relationship with the individual vs the collective, and I don’t think we always get it right. We pass laws as a collective and we prosecute as a collective (on behalf of the wronged), but the wronged individual should be the only one granting mercy.

    • #57
  28. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Stina (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I’ve always heard that the trial system was designed to make prosecutions hard, that ten guilty men would go free rather than have one man wrongly convicted, or something like that. The effect of politicized trails and the choices in whom to prosecute is that now prosecution seems to be more about guiding policy than seeking individual justice.

    I’d like to know when our judicial system switched to impartial prosecutors, because the bill of rights is the right to face your accuser. The only place that actually happens is the civil court, so it’s odd to me that we separate the two. We have an inconsistent relationship with the individual vs the collective, and I don’t think we always get it right. We pass laws as a collective and we prosecute as a collective (on behalf of the wronged), but the wronged individual should be the only one granting mercy.

    Under the rule of men a criminal trial is for offense against men and judgement is decided according to the dictates of the offended men. Under the rule of law it is for offense against law and judgement is decided according to the dictates of the offended law.

    In my opinion, the rule of law is better.  Not perfect, though, I grant you that.

    • #58
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Stina (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I’ve always heard that the trial system was designed to make prosecutions hard, that ten guilty men would go free rather than have one man wrongly convicted, or something like that. The effect of politicized trails and the choices in whom to prosecute is that now prosecution seems to be more about guiding policy than seeking individual justice.

    I’d like to know when our judicial system switched to impartial prosecutors, because the bill of rights is the right to face your accuser. The only place that actually happens is the civil court, so it’s odd to me that we separate the two. We have an inconsistent relationship with the individual vs the collective, and I don’t think we always get it right. We pass laws as a collective and we prosecute as a collective (on behalf of the wronged), but the wronged individual should be the only one granting mercy.

    By “impartial” I mean is that prosecutors are not supposed to have a personal grudge against the defendant.  They are not supposed to have a personal stake in the outcome other than seeking the truth.  They are not supposed to seek a conviction apart apart from the facts for the purpose of promoting any ideology.  Even during a trial up until the minute that the jury makes a decision, the defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent.

    This is why prosecutors should only state facts that they know to be true, and state them even-handedly with the same truthfulness that a witness is sworn to: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  They should not be able to lie by commission, omission, half-truths, misdirection, parsing or innuendo.

    A defense attorney can say “I don’t care whether you’re guilty or not, I’ll defend you.”  But a prosecutor must never be able to say “I don’t care whether you’re guilty or not, I will convict you.”

    As one prosecutor once said to me, “It’s all a game, man.  It’s all a game.”

    • #59
  30. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I’ve always heard that the trial system was designed to make prosecutions hard, that ten guilty men would go free rather than have one man wrongly convicted, or something like that. The effect of politicized trails and the choices in whom to prosecute is that now prosecution seems to be more about guiding policy than seeking individual justice.

    I’d like to know when our judicial system switched to impartial prosecutors, because the bill of rights is the right to face your accuser. The only place that actually happens is the civil court, so it’s odd to me that we separate the two. We have an inconsistent relationship with the individual vs the collective, and I don’t think we always get it right. We pass laws as a collective and we prosecute as a collective (on behalf of the wronged), but the wronged individual should be the only one granting mercy.

    Under the rule of men a criminal trial is for offense against men and judgement is decided according to the dictates of the offended men. Under the rule of law it is for offense against law and judgement is decided according to the dictates of the offended law.

    In my opinion, the rule of law is better. Not perfect, though, I grant you that.

    Has it been tried to blend the impartial court to prove the case and allowing the victim to mete out the justice with the guidance of the judge? Unless they abdicate.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.