The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.
No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.
The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
Yes, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince a jury to go to trial. They have to influence the jury to agree.
Defense’s part comes at the trial.
The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
Because they usually bring sufficient evidence, and the jury is only deciding if there is sufficient evidence to move forward. This doesnt decide guilt.
There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to the US “justice” system. Grand jury decisions aren’t remotely the problematic part.
Within weeks of each other in 2014, a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, and another in Staten Island, New York, both declined to indict police officers in the deaths of unarmed black men: Ferguson’s eighteen-year-old Michael Brown and New York’s forty-three-year-old Eric Garner.Nationwide protests involving thousands erupted in the wake of the grand juries’ decisions. The protests fostered widespread criticism of the institution of the grand jury, prompting calls for its abolition as part of broader criminal justice reform. But federal and state grand juries have long been the subject of immense criticism from scholars, defense attorneys, and activists.The recent controversies merely drew public attention to flaws in the grand jury system that had been there all along.
I’d personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.
Grand jury decisions aren’t remotely the problematic part.
This is wrong and it’s what I responded to.
A grand jury refusing to indict might mean the evidence wasn’t sufficient or it might mean the prosecutor didn’t really want an indictment.
I’d personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.
Personally I’d say the issue with the US justice system is that it’s a system full of problems and Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.
None of these problems has a “bigger role” than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken. This is just one representation of the endemic issues within the US system of government.
I didn’t say “don’t fix anything because so much is broken” so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.
I’m just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was “grand juries aren’t remotely the problematic part” to “they’re not the biggest problem”.
You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don’t get mad at me for your own spurious claim.
“A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.”
The prosecutor, very much, can influence a grand jury’s decision on whether to indict.
What part of my comment said otherwise?
No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.
The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
Yes, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince a jury to go to trial. They have to influence the jury to agree.
Defense’s part comes at the trial.
Because they usually bring sufficient evidence, and the jury is only deciding if there is sufficient evidence to move forward. This doesnt decide guilt.
There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to the US “justice” system. Grand jury decisions aren’t remotely the problematic part.
That’s not true at all.
Opening paragraph:
I’d personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.
This is wrong and it’s what I responded to.
A grand jury refusing to indict might mean the evidence wasn’t sufficient or it might mean the prosecutor didn’t really want an indictment.
Personally I’d say the issue with the US justice system is that it’s a system full of problems and Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.
None of these problems has a “bigger role” than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken. This is just one representation of the endemic issues within the US system of government.
“Don’t fix anything because so much is broken” and “All problems are of the same importance” are not, and will never be, philosophies I subscribe to.
You do you bud.
I didn’t say “don’t fix anything because so much is broken” so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.
I’m just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was “grand juries aren’t remotely the problematic part” to “they’re not the biggest problem”.
You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don’t get mad at me for your own spurious claim.