EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Well Sudden Valley Gunner on another thread seemed to advocate for private prosecution.
Which from what I gather is the ability of any average citizen to file charges and prosecute someone themselves and/or hire an attorney to prosecute for them.
This idea actually has roots in english common law and was done for many years in the United States until the 20th century when public prosecutors became the norm everywhere. Private Prosecution from what I gather is still legal and practiced in the United Kingdom, except in Scotland where Scot's law has many requirements including recieving permission of the court to proceed. I also understand it can technically be done in Virginia and in North Carolina although the last private prosecution in NC was done in 1975.
Advantages would be
>Corrupt officials or those with political connections can be held accountable
>If public prosecution were done away with entirely then only people who had wronged other people would be prosecuted, those heavy handed laws or those laws with no victim would be nullified by lack of prosecution
>It would reinforce the idea that public officials work for the public at large
Disadvantages
>Frivolous claims may occur more often
>Court Systems would have to eat the cost of many claims filed by parties of varying interests, since indictments have to be seen by a judge first, this would require that a claim filed by anyone and their lawyer would have to be reviewed, at considerable expense to the court system
>If public prosecution were done away with entirely, the poor or disadvantaged who could not afford an attorney would be unable to access justice if they're the victim of a crime. even if the system allowed "pro se prosecution" it's unlikely those who can't afford a lawyer would know the law or procedure well enough to succeed, leaving lower income people as the victims of years of unprosecuted offenses
>Threat of criminal prosecution could be used for blackmail or extortion purposes.
Any thoughts or opinions?
Which from what I gather is the ability of any average citizen to file charges and prosecute someone themselves and/or hire an attorney to prosecute for them.
This idea actually has roots in english common law and was done for many years in the United States until the 20th century when public prosecutors became the norm everywhere. Private Prosecution from what I gather is still legal and practiced in the United Kingdom, except in Scotland where Scot's law has many requirements including recieving permission of the court to proceed. I also understand it can technically be done in Virginia and in North Carolina although the last private prosecution in NC was done in 1975.
Advantages would be
>Corrupt officials or those with political connections can be held accountable
>If public prosecution were done away with entirely then only people who had wronged other people would be prosecuted, those heavy handed laws or those laws with no victim would be nullified by lack of prosecution
>It would reinforce the idea that public officials work for the public at large
Disadvantages
>Frivolous claims may occur more often
>Court Systems would have to eat the cost of many claims filed by parties of varying interests, since indictments have to be seen by a judge first, this would require that a claim filed by anyone and their lawyer would have to be reviewed, at considerable expense to the court system
>If public prosecution were done away with entirely, the poor or disadvantaged who could not afford an attorney would be unable to access justice if they're the victim of a crime. even if the system allowed "pro se prosecution" it's unlikely those who can't afford a lawyer would know the law or procedure well enough to succeed, leaving lower income people as the victims of years of unprosecuted offenses
>Threat of criminal prosecution could be used for blackmail or extortion purposes.
Any thoughts or opinions?