She can help repair the Supreme Court. i.e. Roberts.
This is very true and unfair. Lazy DA’s don’t want trials. It’s all plea bargaining. Even in civil court, they don’t want trials. Only 2% of civil cases go to trial.
Whoa! This is nothing short of blackmail.
My suggested reforms:
1. Pretrial assessment of what the penalty should be if the suspect is convicted, based on the statutes, the severity of the offense and any applicable sentencing standards for most similar cases. That assessment sticks no matter how the suspect pleas.
2. No plea deals. The government must prove its case.
3. If not convicted the alleged suspect can sue for wrongful prosecution, with a pretrial hearing on that matter where a judge assesses if they have sufficient evidentiary grounds for such a suit, or not.
4. Prosecutors who lose suits for wrongful prosecution must be removed from office. Why? It suggests they acted in the self interest in trying to get a conviction and not in the greater interest in justice. Under this rule our Michael Flynn would at some point be allowed to sue the original DOJ prosecutors, and maybe judge Sullivan as an accessory to the bad prosecutors.
5. Additionally, in the matter of DOJ suing corporations, we need to ban settlements. The DOJ should not be allowed to wield the threat that no matter how low their proof is that they can get a company to settle anyway because otherwise the DOJ can and will keep them in court forever, raising to unsustainable levels the cost of defending the company’s innocence.
6. In all civil suits, no matter who the plaintiff is, even if it is the federal government, the standard rule should be that the loser pays all the costs of the other party. That will prevent the DOJ from extracting “settlements” on cases it really cannot prove, just by using its power to keep the defendant company tied up in court forever. The other, and maybe the may problem with DOJ “settlements” they come 90% of the time out of different interpretations of gray areas of the laws written by Congress. Seeing that the law is not transparent and even though a reasonable person can see how a company could reasonably interpret the law as not hindering some action of theirs, the DOJ will decide to interpret the law and different way and prosecute anyway. When the company then agrees to the DOJ settlement, it is that settlement that is thereafter used to determine what the law really means. The result is the executive legislating law via the “settlement” process. I am sure the founders never intended that. My preference for a true department of JUSTICE would be that it would refuse to act where Congress has not made the law sufficiently transparent such that no one should be able to interpret the law but one way. When Congress complains it is up to the executive to tell congress it has provided an opaque part of the law that cannot be responsibly prosecuted, so congress needs to fix the law.