BananaJunior said... Tom, I like to think you're just commenting, but I do think I hear a hint of gloating from you. What's so great about charging people based on the state statute when the city refuses to have a statute of their own? Shouldn't police officers follow the will of the voters in the city that employs them? And shouldn't prosecutors respect the will of the voters as well?Tom, although I think too many people get charged for dumb things, I think the ultimate responsibility for law enforcement lies on the voters themselves. So when some [idiot] in California gets life for writing 2 bad checks and stealing a slice of pizza or something, and not confessing to get a better deal, the voters caused that, it's really down to them. So when the voters decide to back off in one particular area, shouldn't that just happen? What should a policeman do? A prosecutor?
BananaJunior,While your thoughts and enthusiasm are welcome, I ask that you please refrain from cursing. You seem quite capable of getting your ideas across without it.BTW: I thnk Tom was attempting humor - not crowing. Humor is a hard concept for prosecutors. ;-) We'll probably have to help him along a little.
Certainly, Ken. I shall use the word "dumbperson" from now on, instead of the vulgar word resembling it. Thank you.
And I guess I'm talking about a broader issue here - how legitimate is it for the government to promote various criminal laws, as opposed to obediently following the will of the voters? Understandably the government has some role here - suppose the voters wish to burn witches! Or wish to legalize murder (although I rather think that the "common law" reference in the Constitution would ensure this would be impossible, even were all statutes repealed.) However, should these policemen be allowed to make a public policy to enforce a law that those under their jurisdiction demonstratably, democratically do not want? Can the government, to take it to the highest level, have "opinions" on how the people "should vote"? I understand that Senator Kerry wants me to vote Democratic, and President Bush wants me to vote Republican, but neither of them IS the government, are they? The government itself has no partisan or other affiliation, does it, except subservience to the consent of the governed? Because, hey, go to www.pushingback.org, they're openly condemning the "legalization lobby" with TAXPAYER money! They are quite openly telling the taxpayer how to vote, and using his money to do it. You could call this "general welfare", but it's totally a stretch to do that.
Post a Comment