Baltimore no longer prosecuting crime

[cableok]

Marilyn Mosby is the prosecutor in Baltimore. She has decided that her office will no longer prosecute low level crimes like drug possession, prostitution, etc. I understand that there is prosecutorial-discretion, but this does not feel like it falls in that category. She is mandating that no low-level crimes will be prosecuted. That simply makes those “crimes”...not crimes.

I actually agree that we should not be spending resources on crimes that generally do not have a victim. I further agree that drug possession and prostitution should not be criminalized. But I do have a problem with Mosby’s actions. Deciding something should not be a crime should fall to those that make the laws, not the ones that enforce them.

https://news.yahoo.com/baltimore-no-longer-prosecute-drug-211500652.html

 

[RxCowboy]

 

[CocoCincinnati]

How about instead of ignoring these crimes, you try to get these people help. You can still arrest and charge without sending to jail. I imagine some prostitutes would like help getting out of that life and drug addicts could use a wake up call before they reach rock bottom.

 

[andylicious]

Isn't it a crime when a prosecutor ignores crime?

 

[jetman]

View attachment 89580

 

[steross]

This country is by design a union of different states with their own structure and planning which allows ideas to be tried locally without really affecting others. It amazes me that people can sit and complain about a different place trying something that might make their local situation better (or maybe worse) when it will have absolutely no effect on the complainer whatsoever. People simply fear the idea that what they believe in may not be true so bad mouth any test of their pre-conceived notions.

It is just like when everyone on this board absolutely ridiculed Seattle for their minimum wage increase which of course affected none of us. But, the cry was "the working poor in Seattle will lose their jobs."
And, that didn't happen. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/cajr-ssm031521.php

 

[cableok]

This country is by design a union of different states with their own structure and planning which allows ideas to be tried locally without really affecting others. It amazes me that people can sit and complain about a different place trying something that might make their local situation better (or maybe worse) when it will have absolutely no effect on the complainer whatsoever. People simply fear the idea that what they believe in may not be true so bad mouth any test of their pre-conceived notions.

It is just like when everyone on this board absolutely ridiculed Seattle for their minimum wage increase which of course affected none of us. But, the cry was "the working poor in Seattle will lose their jobs."
And, that didn't happen. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/cajr-ssm031521.php

Your missing the point... or at least mine.
It isn’t that Baltimore or Maryland decided to change laws. It is a prosecutor that has decided not to prosecute those that break the laws. In effect, some laws are virtually meaningless.

Again, I actually agree with the actions/crimes listed to NOT be criminalized, but my point is that should be the legislature that does that.

 

[LS1 Z28]

I actually agree that we should not be spending resources on crimes that generally do not have a victim. I further agree that drug possession and prostitution should not be criminalized. But I do have a problem with Mosby’s actions. Deciding something should not be a crime should fall to those that make the laws, not the ones that enforce them.

This. I support criminal justice reform, but I hate it when elected officials ignore the separation of powers. Presidents shouldn't legislate through EO, judges shouldn't legislate from the bench, and prosecutors shouldn't pick and choose which crimes to prosecute. There's nothing wrong with this happening, but it should've originated from the legislative branch.

 

[steross]

Your missing the point... or at least mine.
It isn’t that Baltimore or Maryland decided to change laws. It is a prosecutor that has decided not to prosecute those that break the laws. In effect, some laws are virtually meaningless.

Again, I actually agree with the actions/crimes listed to NOT be criminalized, but my point is that should be the legislature that does that.

The enemy of good is perfect.

 

[RxCowboy]

I actually agree that we should not be spending resources on crimes that generally do not have a victim. I further agree that drug possession and prostitution should not be criminalized. But I do have a problem with Mosby’s actions. Deciding something should not be a crime should fall to those that make the laws, not the ones that enforce them.

This. I support criminal justice reform, but I hate it when elected officials ignore the separation of powers. Presidents shouldn't legislate through EO, judges shouldn't legislate from the bench, and prosecutors shouldn't pick and choose which crimes to prosecute. There's nothing wrong with this happening, but it should've originated from the legislative branch.

You do know that prosecutorial discretion means that prosecutors can literally pick and choose which cases to prosecute, right?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[GumbyFromPokeyLand]

This country is by design a union of different states with their own structure and planning which allows ideas to be tried locally without really affecting others. It amazes me that people can sit and complain about a different place trying something that might make their local situation better (or maybe worse) when it will have absolutely no effect on the complainer whatsoever. People simply fear the idea that what they believe in may not be true so bad mouth any test of their pre-conceived notions.

It is just like when everyone on this board absolutely ridiculed Seattle for their minimum wage increase which of course affected none of us. But, the cry was "the working poor in Seattle will lose their jobs."
And, that didn't happen. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/cajr-ssm031521.php

Like, who cares if Tennessee outlaws abortion, or Montana makes heroin legal or WV expands capital punishment to all sorts of crimes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cableok]

You do know that prosecutorial discretion means that prosecutors can literally pick and choose which cases to prosecute, right?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

That is actually what I said in the first post.
But this is expanding that. It is not picking and choosing certain cases not to prosecute...it is announcing she will not prosecute any cases from specific crimes.

 

[ramases2112]

You do know that prosecutorial discretion means that prosecutors can literally pick and choose which cases to prosecute, right?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

That is actually what I said in the first post.
But this is expanding that. It is not picking and choosing certain cases not to prosecute...it is announcing she will not prosecute any cases from specific crimes.

He is playing stupid. He knows exactly what you meant.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[LS1 Z28]

You do know that prosecutorial discretion means that prosecutors can literally pick and choose which cases to prosecute, right?

We all know the basic separations of power. It's the duty of the legislative branch to create laws, it's the duty of the executive branch to enforce laws, and it's the duty of the judicial branch to interpret laws. DA's have a duty to enforce laws, even if they disagree with them. It's one thing for them to use prosecutorial discretion to drop a case due to lack of evidence, but it's a very different thing to stop prosecuting certain crimes altogether. The power to decide what is or isn't a law rests with the legislative branch.

What this prosecutor did wasn't illegal, but it was an abuse of power. How would you feel if she decided that she wasn't going to prosecute rape or murder?

 

[steross]

Like, who cares if Tennessee outlaws abortion, or Montana makes heroin legal or WV expands capital punishment to all sorts of crimes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point was based on the idea that the reader would have a basic understanding of the confines of the federal/state relationship in this country. Sorry, I over-assumed.

 

[bigbadbob]

We all know the basic separations of power. It's the duty of the legislative branch to create laws, it's the duty of the executive branch to enforce laws, and it's the duty of the judicial branch to interpret laws. DA's have a duty to enforce laws, even if they disagree with them. It's one thing for them to use prosecutorial discretion to drop a case due to lack of evidence, but it's a very different thing to stop prosecuting certain crimes altogether. The power to decide what is or isn't a law rests with the legislative branch.

What this prosecutor did wasn't illegal, but it was an abuse of power. How would you feel if she decided that she wasn't going to prosecute rape or murder?

Question: every state has asinine and outdated laws still “on the books”. Should they go about charging people for those crimes even though they are absurd? Example: In Oklahoma bigamy is a crime. I think it’s been charged once, but happens every day.

 

[RxCowboy]

My point was based on the idea that the reader would have a basic understanding of the confines of the federal/state relationship in this country. Sorry, I over-assumed.

 

[Well]

Don't believe this is the first time this has been tried. I remember some stink in Texas with some prosecutor trying something similar.
It's been awhile since I've looked at some of this, but I'm not sure its a crime for a prosectuor to not prosecute, but it could be used as a basis for removal.

 

[RxCowboy]

We all know the basic separations of power. It's the duty of the legislative branch to create laws, it's the duty of the executive branch to enforce laws, and it's the duty of the judicial branch to interpret laws. DA's have a duty to enforce laws, even if they disagree with them. It's one thing for them to use prosecutorial discretion to drop a case due to lack of evidence, but it's a very different thing to stop prosecuting certain crimes altogether. The power to decide what is or isn't a law rests with the legislative branch.

What this prosecutor did wasn't illegal, but it was an abuse of power. How would you feel if she decided that she wasn't going to prosecute rape or murder?

The DA is an elected, political position. If you don't like how they use their discretion you can vote them out.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Can you see in any real way a prosecutor declining to prosecute rape or murder?

 

[RxCowboy]

From Boston College Law Revue:

Furthermore, as is the case in most American jurisdictions, there are not sufficient resources available to the prosecutor’s office to prose cute every meritorious case.51 Prosecutors often must decide not to pursue one matter (or category of matters) in order to have the investigative or prosecutorial capacity to prosecute other matters deemed to be of higher priority.5 (emphasis added)