One side wants to speed up the process. They envision a conveyor belt. For much of our history, criminal justice meant putting black men in jail. In autocracies, criminal justice is to put political dissenters in jail. . .
For the past 100 years or so, liberals have worked to reform the system by making it harder, not easier, to put people in jail.
Sorry, this is dated. I included in a book I published several years ago (but I had it handy.)
See the problem?
Me (and others) spent years trying to change a conveyor belt into an obstacle course because the more places along the way there was to prevent an innocent black man from being imprisoned, the more chances we had to keep from going there (or get him out on appeal.)
Over the past, say, 100 years, things have improved enormously, but the criminal justice system is still flawed because (1) it's run by human beings (2) not all people are good people.
It will never be perfect because it can't.
But we want to push it the right direction.
The right direction is the idea I started with.
Criminal punishment = the state, the government, inflicting pain.
There was a time, not long ago, when "justice" was carried out by mobs with pitchforks. (Lynching mobs)
Now I revealed my hand. I spent my career as a criminal defense appellate lawyer.
My practice was limited to indigents. I have never represented anyone who could afford to pay me, or who did pay me.
(California has a right of appeal, so I was paid through the CA budget.)
When I looked at the system and saw problems, I worked to correct them.
I never said, "The system sucks so we should burn it all down."
Prosecutorial discretion is also a pillar of democracy (or an institution).
In autocracies, the autocrat decides.
In the days of lynching, the mob decided.
Now the prosecutor decides.
Trust me on this. . .
During my career as a defense appellate lawyer representing indigents in CA, I rarely liked the decisions made by prosecutors.
OK, I'll it say it directly. I was often appalled.
They don't always do what we like.
But prosecutorial discretion is better than the alternative.
If you're talking about the Jan. 6 select committee, I think they'll meet their deadline of mostly finishing by spring, and entirely by November.
People are holding out the Jan. 6 select committee investigation (the one issuing subpoenas) . . .
The corollary is that if we just quickly put enough people in jail, we can save democracy.
We have a political problem (A dangerous percentage of Americans prefer autocracy)
We have a law enforcement problem.
The criminal justice system can't solve the political problem.
Someone pointed out that big shots are saying subpoenas should have been enforced at midnight (before anyone actually failed to show up for a deposition)
That would have made for some great theater. It would have raised the temperature.
Trump also provided great theater. . .
So many people want to live in Trump's world where we live for the thrill of landing blows on our enemies.
(1) Fascism is about landing blows on the enemy (2) When "news" becomes a show, what matters is who puts on the best show.
There is no showman better than Trump.
My advice: Don't try to out-Trump Trump.
Don't try to out-fascist the fascists. Then we're no better than they are, and there is no rule-of-law party for people to vote for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We all know that Trump doesn't do well in court, where facts matter. He'd be well-advised not to try to fight the executive privilege matter in court. Yes, he'll lose. It could also backfire.
Make an outrageous statement not based on fact.
When people call it out as wrong, double down.
Finally, assert that following statutory procedure appears "weak."
Yes, the "bad guys" scorn people who follow the laws.
Does that mean we shouldn't?
Reading the Senate Report now on Trump's months-long attempts to subvert the election: cnn.com/2021/10/07/pol…
The attempts involve repeated abuses of presidential power and violations of "longstanding policies" intended to prevent a president from weaponizing the DOJ.
1/
Finding #1: Trump repeatedly asked DOJ leadership to endorse false claims about the election and to assist his efforts to overturn the election.
I seem to recall @RepAdamSchiff warning Congress that if Trump wasn't impeached and removed he'd keep abusing his power.
2/
Finding #2: Mark Meadows similarly "violated longstanding restrictions on White House-DOJ communications about specific law enforcement matters."
Why it matters: In an autocracy, the autocrat decides who to prosecute. Independent prosecutors are a safeguard of democracy.
Regulations from this era include the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and our first affirmative action regulations.
"Insane" indeed.
Does anyone remember the economy tanking during the time from JFK to Nixon?
(That would be 1963 until 1968 or 1974, depending on how to count "Nixon.")
I recommend not arguing with such people. They use the firehose of falsehoods method: throw out lots of garbage and wear people out trying correct errors.
I retweeted because I thought the "insane" comment was interesting.
The hatred of regulations is why they hate government.