Now, we all know the cops have no legal requirement to protect citizens from crime. But this seems interesting. Apparently, in Contra Costa, the prosecutor office will no longer take cases involving misdemeanors. You know, assault, theft, burglaries. They’ll still prosecute firearms cases. And maybe sex crimes, if they feel like it. They’ll consider domestic violence, and if they’re in the mood, assault with a deadly weapon.
But as long as you use your fists, you can do whatever you want in Contra Costa.
What do you think this calls for, a vigilante squad to beat the heck out of crooks? I mean, the vigilantes won’t get prosecuted either, will they?
I thought I was reading an article from The Onion. WTF? Is this some sort of political stunt? The county Board of Supervisors is cutting the DA office’s budget, so this is their way of protesting??
It does seem messed up but playing Devil’s Advocate if they truly cannot meet the demands with their staff don’t they HAVE to do this? Isn’t there some time limit to how fast the prosecutors have to get around to, well, prosecuting before the perp is set free? If so they I guess they simply must prioritize who is worth getting and who to show the door.
Advertising that fact though is just dumb leading me to believe the DA is twisting the government’s arm for more money.
Charges must be filed within 48 hours of a suspect being arrested and jailed. A way around that deadline is for a police agency to submit a police report and requested charges, but leave the suspect out of custody and instead just have a court issue a summons once charges have been filed. This way, police could submit a lengthy police report and it can sit around for a while until a prosecutor can get around to reading it all and deciding which charges to file.
What the DA’s office here could have done (and probably should have done) is just to relax their plea bargain policies to allow prosecutors to more easily dispose of cases. That way, at least certain kinds of crimes, particularly violent misdemeanors, could still be dealt with in some way, even if the result was just an even more ineffectual slap on the wrist. At least some restitution or community service could be brought about.
What is the difference between this and, say, the police declining to respond to 911 calls? Or saying ambulances will no longer be sent to car crashes or medical emergencies? Or saying the fire department will no longer respond to fires?
Or in other words, how can the government just stop providing essential services - services which are necessary to maintain law and order, and the health and safety of citizens? Services which are required to uphold the laws of the state? Can county and municipal governments just decide to stop enforcing state law because of a budget deficit?
I guess police not responding to 911 calls and so on, equated with this, would be if there were so many calls at once they literally could not respond to all calls. At which point the police need to prioritize. If you do not have the manpower then what?
Presumably budgets are tight all around. Something has to give be it reducing services elsewhere or raising taxes and such.
Well if they aren’t prosecuting minor drug offenses that’s awesome. Some criminal prosecution triage is a good thing IMO. Another way to do it would be to randomize it. Only prosecute 20% of such cases. We have way too many laws for a ‘free’ country. I think they should keep going after shoplifters but leave the druggies alone.
I’m not sure that uneven prosecution is legal, insofar as violation of civil liberties is concerned. One law, for all men is a pretty strong foundational pillar of our justice system.
Let’s see. I see this town becoming a mecca for all the homeless people, too. Better weather than SF, and the cops won’t bother you at all.
Prosecutorial discretion is pretty well respected. Besides, different prosecutions may legitimately call for different levels of prosecutorial “firepower,” so to speak. That’s why we allow plea bargains, and that’s why statutes covering a basic type of crime may include circumstances that ramp up the seriousness of the offense and give the prosecutor some options.
Yes, but to make it random and universal? Could I declare that no males would be prosecuted for assault, but all women would? How about nobody making more than 50k a year would be prosecuted for burglary?
I agree to some extent, but it’s unconscionable (IMO) for a prosecutor’s office to publicly announce that it flat out won’t prosecute minor crimes like shoplifting. Is it now open season to just walk into stores and take whatever you want without paying?
I agree with the others that it’s most likely a ploy to get more funding.
Nothing ever prevented cops from beating people. If cops are frustrated because the DA is not prosecuting cases they might take it out on the homeless.
Oh wait they beat people for no reason anyway.
Sorry
