Here’s a recent example. So a known criminal is allegedly sexually assaulting this guy’s wife, husband shows up and beats him. To death, as it turned out. Now, the bad guy is a known perp with a considerable rap sheet. “19 prior arrests including robbery, assault and arson” Pretty safe to say he has no respect for the law or the rights of others, and I’m sure there’s good money his actual offenses against society are not limited to the things that got him arrested 19 times. Why would a DA press charges–ANY charges–against someone who dispatched the creep in a fairly humane manner? And why would the cops even suggest something as heavy as manslaughter?
Hubby is clearly a dangerous man if you threaten his home and family, but hardly someone who presents as a threat to the general public. Quite the opposite, really. Is The System seeing this as an opportunity to discourage vigilantism? Is there some kind of cop thing going on ala: only the Blue Men get to handle the crooks.?
Or are there certain benchmarks that, when met, require the filing of charges and there’s nothing anyone can do about it?
But vigilante justice is generally frowned on in this country. It’s not surprising to see it prosecuted, no matter how much you agree with any particular vigilante.
My take from the article about this incident that I read said that although the police charged him with Manslaughter, the DA was charging the husband with “Assault” and “Criminal Possession of a Weapon”. I don’t know if there was anything less he could have been charged with under the circumstances. I suspect there will be a plea deal and any sentence would be suspended.
I’m reminded of the time I was at a large family gathering/reunion and my then 3 year old nephew (who was visiting with his parents from out of town) said something very honest to a senior family matron. She decided to take offense at this, so I leapt up and offered to remove said nephew from the gathering for appropriate punishment. Once I got him to the appropriate venue I told him for his punishment, he was not allowed to get onions or anchovies on his double dip ice cream cone.
A lot of people seem to miss the main reason to forbid vigilante justice, which is that people get it wrong a lot. If you let this guy off because you believe he got it right, you condemn other innocent people to violence by failing to deter and punish vigilantes.
In this case, an assault charge for killing a man is already a very low-ball charge. The DA would never under-charge like that in an ordinary criminal context. It may well plead out to something even lower.
A person can kill the president during the state of the union on camera and nothing compels the DA to file charges. Might not do anything for his career but that’s how it works.
The only “requirement” for a DA is their desire to please the constituency. If the people of the district believe that their attorney is too lenient (or too harsh), he will be voted out of office.
Whether this system works as intended remains a matter of some debate.
Could he file manslaughter charges and just not argue his case as fully as he would normally? Not obviously tank it, but maybe leave some openings for the defense to jump on? I suppose that would not help further his career either.
This is exactly right – the prosecutor has virtually unfettered discretion in his decision to charge or not charge. I seem to recall caselaw in various places that deal with attempts to force a prosecutor to prosecute a criminal case via various methods like a writ of mandamus, and in my recollection they generally always failed.
Now, I say “the prosecutor,” as though it were always a single person – but in fact there’s the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney who has some discretion but has some kind of a supervisor and both of whom work for the (elected) Commonwealth’s Attorney, who is the ultimate boss (in Virginia) for each county’s prosecutorial decisions.
In addition, the Attorney General of Virginia can prosecute criminal cases under certain circumstances without the permission of the county Commonwealth’s Attorney… elections law violations, Alcoholic Beverage Control Act crimes, theft of state property, and child pornography are, inter alia, all areas in which Virginia law grants the AG’s office the power to initiate a prosecution in circuit court. There’s also a provision where the Governor can direct the AG to assist (or take over) a specific case.
So there are a number of persons lumped into “the prosecutor,” in the general rule that the prosecutor has unfettered discretion.
I imagine other jurisdictions have similar framework.
In some places (to my continuing shock), the police are the one who effectively file charges. In Delaware and Pennsylvania, for example, the prosecutors often do not review the charges until just before the preliminary hearing!
Charges alone can ruin a person’s life. Merely being charged often leads to losing a job, being barred from certain occupational licenses, and a whole host of other consequences–to say nothing of the direct consequences of pre-trial detention and the cost of defending oneself. If a DA doesn’t believe the charge, he is not legally or ethically permitted to bring it. There is no room for just letting the jury decide, even when there would be some social justice in doing so, as in the case of close police brutality cases.
Max Allan Collins wrote a series of books about a hit-man named Quarry.
Quarry returned from Vietnam to discover his wife in bed with another man. A day or so later, he tracks the guy down and kicks the jack out that is supporting the car the guy is working under, killing him.
I think another classic case is mercy killings: a couple has been married for decades and one of them is facing a slow, painful death. Not all prosecutors go for first degree homicide.
