Response 1 530

100 word response 1 reference due 9/30/2023

Straw

Hello everyone,

I agree with Howell’s statement that prosecutors have a duty to seek justice and to decline prosecution when prosecuting would result in social inequities.  This means that even though they have the discretion to make the decision on whether or not to prosecute a case, they must now allow this power to cause them to violate the rights of certain groups while protecting the rights of other groups.  The prosecutor makes the decision to decline prosecution when there is not enough evidence or probable cause to do so in the first place.  When a case could cause social unrest or rioting, picketing, or other demonstrations, the prosecutor must weigh the pros and cons of prosecution.  He could prosecute a case that could result in citizens being angered at the criminal justice system or police officers.  For example, in a case in San Francisco, where Sean Moore was fatally shot in his home was dismissed by the district attorney at that time.  The police officer, Kenneth Cha, was initially charged with manslaughter in 2021.  District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said she could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cha did not act in self-defense.  The case caused an uproar with the victim’s mother and the public. The district attorney claimed that her predecessor filed charges strictly for political reasons.  This case is just one example where a decision to not prosecute a case involving a police officer caused riots and other problems in society.  The people believed that the decision was wrong and showed their disapproval.

I think that the prosecutor should review his case in its entirety to make his decision. He is being pressured to prosecute all drug cases because the community has been dealing with drug because the community has been having criminal activity associated with drugs.  As the prosecutor, it is his job to check the state statutes on the 14 grams of oxycodone.  The person was recommended to be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 7 years in prison along with a fine of one hundred thousand.  According to the law and the demands of the state attorney, A should be charged and sentenced to his time in prison and the fine.   However, the prosecutor must take into consideration that the informant used was not considered to be reliable.  He could end up losing the case based on the informant’s refusal to cooperate because of his fear of retaliation by the drug dealers.  He would have to weigh the options in front of him if he wants to obey his boss.  According to the law, this was considered  felony because he possessed 14 grams.   He could charge A with a lesser charge and reduce his sentence, but he would have to meet with this defense attorney.  A could be considered a low level drug offender because the drugs were tied to personal use and not considered violent or sales related.  However, these criminals make up a large part of the United States prison population.

If the prosecutor decides to engage in hard bargaining with the defense, he would have to come up with a plea offer that would make it reasonable for A.   The prosecutor has the power in this kind of negotiation.  He can tell the defendant that the plea bargain or deal has a time limit that makes him feel he needs to take it quickly or face worse charges.  However, the defense attorney must inform his client his chances of winning a court case if he decides to take the plea, or the disadvantages of going to trial based on evidence that the prosecutor has against him.  Hard bargaining may make the defendant take the plea because he feels afraid that based on his drug charges and the legal statues of the state regarding oxycodone.  It would be the prosecutor’s job to make the offer and up to the defense attorney to advise his client as to his best interests to agree to an offer of reduced sentencing or deciding to go to court to fight the charges.