Prosecutor, Legislator, or Emperor?

Brill

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,895
Location
221B Baker St
When, if ever, is it proper for a prosecutor to determine which laws to enforce?

Today, Baltimore’s State’s Attorney (same one that went after the police in the Freddie Gray incident...all acquitted) announced end to prosecutions for marijuana possession, regardless of amount.

The Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office

Smoking weed ipso facto became legalized in Baltimore. Isn’t this an issue the people of Maryland should have decided? How is Mosby not acting as a single law maker?

Interesting papers:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northw...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6609&context=jclc

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2016&context=facpub

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/...&httpsredir=1&article=2908&context=law-review

@Lefty375 ?
 
This is a weird area for me because I do think that there are a lot of crimes that are pretty stupid. And I do know a lot of cops, and prosecutors, that simply don't enforce some of those stupid laws because it just bogs down the court system.

The answer is to not have those stupid laws to begin with, have the legislature strike them down or change the laws. but seeing as that may never happen, I understand why then they do stuff like this.

On the one hand I don't have a big issue with prosecutorial discretion, on the other hand I don't like that they can just up and willy-nilly choose to enforce something one day and then not the next.
 
Prosecutors do that on a daily basis. Right or wrong, it's within their position to do so....
 
I suppose you could argue that since the State's Attorney is an elected position, part of their duties are to represent the will of their constituents. Of course, you have to balance their desire for safety/security with fair prosecutorial practices, but if the people of Baltimore believe (I'm assuming) that prosecutions for marijuana possession are unethical or immoral, a prosecutor probably should consider whether ending them is in the public's best interest.

That's quick take. For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with this decision, but within the greater context of prosecutorial authority I think the above point stands.
 
No one, regardless of their view on a particular issue, should have this much discretion/latitude. Yet, prosecuting attorneys do.

If a law is so, unfavorable, get the law changed. This is a part of our system that needs to be restructured. We really shouldn't be in a position of picking and choosing which laws and apply and which do not...at least not leaving it to one person and especially if they're not elected (some are appointed). Next thing you know we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
 
Last edited:
In San Antonio, the DA did some changes on possession, made it the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Prosecution still takes place, but relieved a lot of the jail space for more serious crime. A lot of the problems are from inabilities of poor people to pay for bail, or lack of care to pay to get out of jail. 3 hots and bed, why not just hang out.

I'm not sure if the state specifically allowed for that, but LE had always had the ability to file a case without taking someone to jail. I think it was a smart move, be it at the state or county level.

I think that could be done on many other illegal activities, that are not specifically violent in nature (small theft, drugs and alcohol related offences, etc).

I also think their becomes a boiling over point when the state refuses to provide adequate funds for LE or jails, but yet requires prosecution of cases. I've always been for local governments having more athourity to regulate and or govern themselves, within the limits of the constitution.

Not sure in Maryland, but in Texas our DA is elected at the local level, which gives them latitudes to administer as they see fit, within the law, about like a Sheriff refusing to enforce federal laws, etc.
 
Regarding marijuana only, even cops have discretion. Most of the local cops will just take it and send you on your way if it isn't a felonious amount/weight.

Regarding the bigger issue of prosecutorial discretion, my problem is when they want to toss drug stuff out, but throw the book at and jail white collar criminals. I am not making a value judgment on the crime or penalty, but commenting that both are pretty low-hanging fruit that bogs down the system.
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The following is my experience living in a law enforcement family.

Some reasons prosecutors won't charge people for breaking a law:
  1. The law is unconstitutional, either at the state or federal level. They know it will get tossed once it reaches a judge so why bother with...
  2. The cost. Both to the local government and the usually law-abiding taxpayer who will now have a record/be in an overcrowded system.
  3. Inconsistencies within the jurisdiction. A county level prosecutor may have a couple of different cities' laws which conflict. So until it is determined at the county or state level what is actually legal, why prosecute a non-violent misdemeanor that may be completely tossed leaving the state open to lawsuits from those previously detained or incarcerated.
 
Salt USMC said:
I suppose you could argue that since the State's Attorney is an elected position, part of their duties are to represent the will of their constituents. Of course, you have to balance their desire for safety/security with fair prosecutorial practices, but if the people of Baltimore believe (I'm assuming) that prosecutions for marijuana possession are unethical or immoral, a prosecutor probably should consider whether ending them is in the public's best interest.

That's quick take. For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with this decision, but within the greater context of prosecutorial authority I think the above point stands.
Click to expand...

Tend to agree. They have a mandate now. During the last government here this issue came up because the government said they could do what they liked because they had the mandate but one issue wasn't mentioned during their election speeches or promises. So the question is also, does the mandate have to be clear beforehand about what will happen or is it carte blanche justification for anything?
 
It can be crazy...even crazier in the fed world. In the local world (Texas), Officers/Detectives make arrests and file cases based on the Texas Penal Code, arrest made and cases filed with the county for prosecution. Asst. DA's (ADA's) take the cases either try and plea them out or take them to trial. I have never had a case misdemeanor or felony plead or dismissed without the ADA getting with me and talking about it, a team mentality. I did have a capital murder case that the DA did not want to make it a death penalty case, but life in prison....but I had no issues with that and neither did the victims family.

Now fed world, Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA's) are involved at the beginning and can decide to not take the case, instead sending to the locals....a matter of case appeal and would they get a for sure guilty case.

Different worlds, but the ADA's get tons of daily cases sent to them, while there are less cases in the federal world. Note: I don't include the AUSA's that deal with the Indian reservations, they are more like ADA's with the intake of cases they get.

We went to a "usable" amount of marijuana for filing with the county, keeping a joint here and there at the class C lever for drug paraphernalia...it did cut down on county cases...we did that in Dallas county about 12 years ago...worked well. It was actually a good call by the then DA to make.

I have not idea of the crime world in Baltimore, but just putting in some local vision in my area to compare.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top