Brian Tannebaum said on March 17, 2009  

Thank you for answering my 6 year olds question. Although I think I will have to paraphrase it in order for her not to start crying after 5 minutes.

I completely disagree though that the job of prosecutor is premised on the threat of jail. I understand what you are saying, that unless the offender has the possibility of jail, none of the other possibilities are relevant. Therefore, if an offender knows that the worst he will get is probation or a fine, why not risk trial?

But we as a society need to re-examine the notion that every single criminal offense should carry with it the possibility of jail. There are people who need to be off the streets, and everyone else. We have evolved into a society that doesn't accept the difference.

Just look at our juvenile and misdemeanor courts.

And lets not have a circular argument about how that's why we have probation and other non-jail sanctions. We as a society have been conditioned to wonder why everyone is not in jail for even the most minor, non-violent offense.

We can't afford the system we have, yet we perpetrate it.

 Ken Lammers said on March 17, 2009  

Just tell her a prosecutor is a guy who paints with a hammer.

I'll try to address the other comments when I have time to tonight.

 Kimberly A. said on March 17, 2009  

"Once a person has demonstrated that he cannot, or will not, conform to basic societal norms removal from society as a protective measure becomes the only way to deal with the offender."

Yikes! Is a prosecutor someone with a limited imagination, painting with a hammer? :)

 Ken Lammers said on March 17, 2009  

Well, I can imagine other solutions to persistent, non-changing offenders. However, most of them would be constitutionally banned. :-)

 Zerin Hood said on March 18, 2009  

I must agree with the Hammer. The American Justice System is linked to the self-evident truths that men desire life, liberty and property. The criminal justice system has the power to limit these rights - the most frequent threat is to curtail the right to liberty by incarceration for a period of time.
One might argue that all crimes are not or should not be punishable by incarceration, e.g., traffic infractions only get a fine. But ultimately, even those infractions are punishable by jail when the offender ignores or refuses to comply, won't show up in court, won't pay the fine, won't comply with probation, etc -- the result is to go to jail. It is painting with hammers.

 Ramiro "Remy" Orozco, Esq. said on March 18, 2009  

Now this is a great for my nephew's "Show & Tell" But for us grown ups, how do the Elected D.A.'s policies, MADD, police officer pressure, race, money, friends of law enforcement/prosecution and personal power trips play into the "art' of being a law dawg?!?

>:o)

 Ken Lammers said on March 18, 2009  

Great, I get tweaked by Brian for making it too complex and Remy for making it not complex enuf . . .

 Ramiro "Remy" Orozco, Esq. said on March 19, 2009  

It's all love Ken!!! Im just venting because one of your brethren had me prep all weekend and then raffles a plea morning of...