(01-10-2022 06:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2022 11:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Rift opens between Manhattan DA and Chief of Police, Superintendent of Police

I can see the next series --- 'Law and Order: Progressive Cities'

This would be the one where Brisco and Logan have a serious heart to heart with L about even making arrests, and Jack McCoy gets into an open feud with the police about the upsides of even trying to enforce laws.

They would save a shitload on cast costs -- since the perps would be released without bail every episode they could have a rotating sub-cast of bad guys who appear every third episode after they are re-arrested, not jailed, and released with a slap on the wrist final sentence of no jail time.

And they wouldnt have to do the scenes of interviewing the accomplices in jail to try and flip them since, well, again..... no one would be serving any time.

That was a really interesting article - thanks for posting. It gave a much better (and more holistic) view of the issue as compared to the National Review article posted. A few things that stood out to me from it:

- apparently there is some significant disagreement from Adams, which makes sense because of his police background.
- the guidance importantly says this “ In his memo, Bragg instructed his prosecutors to ask judges for jail or prison time only for those who had committed serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault and major economic crimes, unless required to do otherwise by law. Others, he has said, would be directed to programs better equipped to deal with the issues that had led them to commit the crimes.
- apparently a number of charges that the memo highlighted for not being charged were already being handled in the same manner. Notably, resisting arrest has been added to that list. That seems like an awful blanket decision, though. I could see maybe encouraging this charge to only be sought in specific instances, but a blanket decision not to charge is wacky.
- apparently the guy is a conservative when it comes to guns: Bragg has also instructed his prosecutors not to seek jail time for gun possession. (just joking - don’t really get this decision either)

You do understand the concept of 'prosecutorial discretion', correct? That is, leaving it to the prosecutor to be the determiner of what to move forward with.

That is why the phrase that you highlighted can mean literally zero in the analysis. But I am sure it looks good in that memo....

On the last point -- kudos to Bragg for being consistent. When one hears the term "serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault and major economic crimes", most of the time one doesnt leap automatically to "gun possession" being a 'serious offense' akin to 'murder, sexual assault and major economic crimes'.

I personally think that shitbirds who use a gun to knock off a liquor store should get time, as should someone who participates in a 'group heist' that is so popular in blue cities these days. If you simply steal, time should be on the table -- not just at the whim of a racist DA (yes, he is racist in saying that race should be a factor in what is charged) or because state law stupidly sets the level of theft at less than $950 not subject to time.

And I think if you are unlawfully in possession of a gun you should do time.

The illustrious DA Bragg draws the line at "serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault and major economic crimes" -- of which gun possession is not in that category. I think he is dumb as fing dirt for not charging it with time, but at least he is dumb as dirt in a consistent manner and doesnt reflexively bundle gun possession into the "serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault and major economic crimes" pile that he magically creates.