Kreetle

Historically speaking, I would contend that the definition of asylum is seeking protection from a persecutorial government. I wouldn’t classify “I live in a bad neighborhood” a legitimate reason for asylum.

What would you say your job description and role is as a DA?

You say you want to end mass incarceration, but if a mass amount of people are being incarcerated for committing a crime that has mandatory minimum jail sentencing, is it really the role of a DA to determine who goes to jail? Are you going to selectively prosecute crimes YOU think are worthy of jail time and not prosecute crimes that you don’t? And finally, wouldn’t the laws themselves need reform by legislatures and not activist prosecutors?

Given that you are a constitutional scholar, shouldn’t you recognize that rights and benefits are two different things? A right is not a good or service that the government bestows upon you at the expense of the tax payer. A right is a protection from the government.

E.g.,

1. The government cannot take punitive action against you for speaking your mind.
   
2. The government cannot take away your firearms without due process
3. They cannot house and quarter soldiers in your home against your consent
4. The government cannot conduct unreasonable searches against your person without a warrant or probable cause
5. You cannot be sentenced for a crime without a trial - they can’t try you for the same crime twice - you cannot be forced to testify against yourself
6. Lengthy trials with partial juries are expressly forbidden as a protection of the individual

There’s a glaring common theme in the bill of rights - protection of the individual against punitive actions from the government. It never once says that the citizen is entitled to the product and labor of others at the expense of the treasury.

It is dangerous territory to enter when you start redefining what “rights” are. If education becomes a right, healthcare, housing, transportation, food, energy, etc can quickly become next on the list and we have plenty of historical context for why that is a very bad thing.

Thanks for taking the time to respond - I wasn't expecting a response.

Of course. The prosecutors have the authority in which cases to pursue and which not to pursue. But it's the reasoning behind those decisions that really matter. If the DA is choosing not to prosecute crimes for political reasons, they are not upholding their office. It is perfectly reasonable and expected for DAs to not pursue prosecution based on lack of evidence that would be a waste of time for all parties involved (judge, jury, defendant, etc.). In the same sense, I would be disapproving of DAs who zealously pursue cases with little evidence and intimidate defendants into plea deals by overcharging with minimum time served.

It's two sides of the same coin and neither side is serving justice.

​

A DAs job is not to pursue justice as he sees fit but rather see that justice is done.