Quote:In a move that has alarmed prosecutors, lawmakers, and local officials the Washington State Supreme Court has approved a sweeping rule change that grants judges broad new discretion to dismiss criminal charges, even over the objections of prosecutors and without legislative approval.

The rule change, effective September 1, 2025, amends Criminal Rule 8.3(b) to allow judges to throw out prosecutions they deem “unjust,” based on vague, subjective criteria. Among the new factors judges are directed to consider, “the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community,” and “the impact of a dismissal or lack of dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.”

Critics say this language opens the door for politically motivated decisions, where judges sympathetic to criminal justice reform activists may dismiss cases based on personal ideology, not the law or facts. Under the new rule, defense attorneys can seek dismissal by merely alleging “arbitrary action or governmental misconduct” that supposedly prejudiced their client, even in the absence of hard evidence.

The judicial change closely mirrors a controversial bill that failed in the legislature after public outcry. That legislation, spearheaded by Rep. Tarra Simmons (D-Bremerton), would have allowed judges to modify criminal sentences they felt “no longer advance the interests of justice.” It was the second time Simmons tried to pass a variation of the so-called “Judicial Discretion Act.”

Simmons, a formerly incarcerated individual turned legislator, has championed other leniency efforts in the name of racial equity, including a 2022 proposal to reduce penalties for drive-by shootings. Her proposals have drawn intense backlash as Washington grapples with a surge in violent crime and record-high homicide rates.

With the legislation defeated, proponents of the policy shift, including public defender offices in King and Snohomish Counties, turned to the state’s highest court instead, effectively bypassing the legislative process and overturning decades of precedent, including the landmark State v. Starrish decision, which had previously limited judicial discretion in dismissing cases.

The rule change comes on the heels of another major, and costly, judicial decision. Earlier this year, the Washington Supreme Court adopted new statewide limits on public defender caseloads, slashing the number of cases attorneys can handle by as much as two-thirds.

In a letter to the court, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) warned of a potential funding crisis, noting that most public defense costs are borne not by the state, but by already overburdened cities. “A tripling of the required number of misdemeanor public defense attorneys would be a tremendous cost that far exceeds the capacities of cities to fund,” the group wrote in March.

The AWC estimates that by July 2025, jurisdictions will need 70 percent more misdemeanor public defenders, and by 2027, when caseload caps drop even further to 200 cases per year, the state will need twice as many defenders as currently exist.

“There simply aren’t enough lawyers,” the AWC stated. “Even if the state provided the funding, jurisdictions will not be able to hire triple the number of public defenders in three years.”

Legal experts and insiders say the convergence of these changes, diminished prosecutorial power, ballooning defense mandates, and expanding judicial discretion, threatens to push the state’s criminal justice system to the brink.

Sources familiar with internal discussions told The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI that local courts may soon face widespread dismissals of lower-level crimes, not because of innocence or exoneration, but because there are simply not enough attorneys to prosecute or defend cases.

“The concern is not just about the money, it’s about justice itself,” one source said. “We’re talking about a system that could collapse under its own weight.”

Washington already faces mounting criticism over a “revolving door” approach to crime, where repeat offenders are often released with minimal accountability, sometimes after racking up dozens of prior convictions. These new judicial policies, critics argue, will only accelerate that trend.

Link

Marxism continues its advance, the recent presidential election a mere stumbling block in their overall scheme of things.

(07-30-2025 08:39 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:In a move that has alarmed prosecutors, lawmakers, and local officials the Washington State Supreme Court has approved a sweeping rule change that grants judges broad new discretion to dismiss criminal charges, even over the objections of prosecutors and without legislative approval.

The rule change, effective September 1, 2025, amends Criminal Rule 8.3(b) to allow judges to throw out prosecutions they deem “unjust,” based on vague, subjective criteria. Among the new factors judges are directed to consider, “the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community,” and “the impact of a dismissal or lack of dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.”

Critics say this language opens the door for politically motivated decisions, where judges sympathetic to criminal justice reform activists may dismiss cases based on personal ideology, not the law or facts. Under the new rule, defense attorneys can seek dismissal by merely alleging “arbitrary action or governmental misconduct” that supposedly prejudiced their client, even in the absence of hard evidence.

The judicial change closely mirrors a controversial bill that failed in the legislature after public outcry. That legislation, spearheaded by Rep. Tarra Simmons (D-Bremerton), would have allowed judges to modify criminal sentences they felt “no longer advance the interests of justice.” It was the second time Simmons tried to pass a variation of the so-called “Judicial Discretion Act.”

Simmons, a formerly incarcerated individual turned legislator, has championed other leniency efforts in the name of racial equity, including a 2022 proposal to reduce penalties for drive-by shootings. Her proposals have drawn intense backlash as Washington grapples with a surge in violent crime and record-high homicide rates.

With the legislation defeated, proponents of the policy shift, including public defender offices in King and Snohomish Counties, turned to the state’s highest court instead, effectively bypassing the legislative process and overturning decades of precedent, including the landmark State v. Starrish decision, which had previously limited judicial discretion in dismissing cases.

The rule change comes on the heels of another major, and costly, judicial decision. Earlier this year, the Washington Supreme Court adopted new statewide limits on public defender caseloads, slashing the number of cases attorneys can handle by as much as two-thirds.

In a letter to the court, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) warned of a potential funding crisis, noting that most public defense costs are borne not by the state, but by already overburdened cities. “A tripling of the required number of misdemeanor public defense attorneys would be a tremendous cost that far exceeds the capacities of cities to fund,” the group wrote in March.

The AWC estimates that by July 2025, jurisdictions will need 70 percent more misdemeanor public defenders, and by 2027, when caseload caps drop even further to 200 cases per year, the state will need twice as many defenders as currently exist.

“There simply aren’t enough lawyers,” the AWC stated. “Even if the state provided the funding, jurisdictions will not be able to hire triple the number of public defenders in three years.”

Legal experts and insiders say the convergence of these changes, diminished prosecutorial power, ballooning defense mandates, and expanding judicial discretion, threatens to push the state’s criminal justice system to the brink.

Sources familiar with internal discussions told The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI that local courts may soon face widespread dismissals of lower-level crimes, not because of innocence or exoneration, but because there are simply not enough attorneys to prosecute or defend cases.

“The concern is not just about the money, it’s about justice itself,” one source said. “We’re talking about a system that could collapse under its own weight.”

Washington already faces mounting criticism over a “revolving door” approach to crime, where repeat offenders are often released with minimal accountability, sometimes after racking up dozens of prior convictions. These new judicial policies, critics argue, will only accelerate that trend.

Link

Frankly—Washington State deserves everything it’s getting. Keep electing idiots and how can you expect anything other than idiocy.

This is exactly how once great City-States fall.

They’re gonna push it. We can only hope there is some esp. legal pushback.

Otherwise… Monkeys dead, shows over.

(07-30-2025 09:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-30-2025 08:39 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:In a move that has alarmed prosecutors, lawmakers, and local officials the Washington State Supreme Court has approved a sweeping rule change that grants judges broad new discretion to dismiss criminal charges, even over the objections of prosecutors and without legislative approval.

The rule change, effective September 1, 2025, amends Criminal Rule 8.3(b) to allow judges to throw out prosecutions they deem “unjust,” based on vague, subjective criteria. Among the new factors judges are directed to consider, “the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community,” and “the impact of a dismissal or lack of dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.”

Critics say this language opens the door for politically motivated decisions, where judges sympathetic to criminal justice reform activists may dismiss cases based on personal ideology, not the law or facts. Under the new rule, defense attorneys can seek dismissal by merely alleging “arbitrary action or governmental misconduct” that supposedly prejudiced their client, even in the absence of hard evidence.

The judicial change closely mirrors a controversial bill that failed in the legislature after public outcry. That legislation, spearheaded by Rep. Tarra Simmons (D-Bremerton), would have allowed judges to modify criminal sentences they felt “no longer advance the interests of justice.” It was the second time Simmons tried to pass a variation of the so-called “Judicial Discretion Act.”

Simmons, a formerly incarcerated individual turned legislator, has championed other leniency efforts in the name of racial equity, including a 2022 proposal to reduce penalties for drive-by shootings. Her proposals have drawn intense backlash as Washington grapples with a surge in violent crime and record-high homicide rates.

With the legislation defeated, proponents of the policy shift, including public defender offices in King and Snohomish Counties, turned to the state’s highest court instead, effectively bypassing the legislative process and overturning decades of precedent, including the landmark State v. Starrish decision, which had previously limited judicial discretion in dismissing cases.

The rule change comes on the heels of another major, and costly, judicial decision. Earlier this year, the Washington Supreme Court adopted new statewide limits on public defender caseloads, slashing the number of cases attorneys can handle by as much as two-thirds.

In a letter to the court, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) warned of a potential funding crisis, noting that most public defense costs are borne not by the state, but by already overburdened cities. “A tripling of the required number of misdemeanor public defense attorneys would be a tremendous cost that far exceeds the capacities of cities to fund,” the group wrote in March.

The AWC estimates that by July 2025, jurisdictions will need 70 percent more misdemeanor public defenders, and by 2027, when caseload caps drop even further to 200 cases per year, the state will need twice as many defenders as currently exist.

“There simply aren’t enough lawyers,” the AWC stated. “Even if the state provided the funding, jurisdictions will not be able to hire triple the number of public defenders in three years.”

Legal experts and insiders say the convergence of these changes, diminished prosecutorial power, ballooning defense mandates, and expanding judicial discretion, threatens to push the state’s criminal justice system to the brink.

Sources familiar with internal discussions told The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI that local courts may soon face widespread dismissals of lower-level crimes, not because of innocence or exoneration, but because there are simply not enough attorneys to prosecute or defend cases.

“The concern is not just about the money, it’s about justice itself,” one source said. “We’re talking about a system that could collapse under its own weight.”

Washington already faces mounting criticism over a “revolving door” approach to crime, where repeat offenders are often released with minimal accountability, sometimes after racking up dozens of prior convictions. These new judicial policies, critics argue, will only accelerate that trend.

Link

Frankly—Washington State deserves everything it’s getting. Keep electing idiots and how can you expect anything other than idiocy.

Not fair. I spent a couple weeks up there visiting North Cascades NP and driving east to Spokane. That state is no dif than the rest. The population centers control the gov

(07-30-2025 10:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This is exactly how once great City-States fall.

They’re gonna push it. We can only hope there is some esp. legal pushback.

Otherwise… Monkeys dead, shows over.

lol ... for posterity ...

Build a wall.