1, sex work, not prostitution, and 2, that’s 100% true, but it’s not anyone’s duty to literally defy the terms of their job for what they might or might not personally think is morally correct, and expecting that of someone is extremely unfair.
Not everyone can or should have to do the extraordinary to be an agent that can be trusted to work for change when put into the right context or when they personally feel ready to stand up.
A church is built to thank the martyrs, not built by the martyrs.
In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.
There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.
Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.
“Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.
A good current example is how the prosecutors of Kings, New York, and Queens Counties in New york state have all across the board decided to decline to prosecute prostitution despite the State prohibition An article from an established Albany(capitol of NY) newspaper explaining the drastic change in statistics after NYC prosecutors stopped prosecuting
1, sex work, not prostitution, and 2, that’s 100% true, but it’s not anyone’s duty to literally defy the terms of their job for what they might or might not personally think is morally correct, and expecting that of someone is extremely unfair.
Not everyone can or should have to do the extraordinary to be an agent that can be trusted to work for change when put into the right context or when they personally feel ready to stand up.
A church is built to thank the martyrs, not built by the martyrs.
In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.
There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.
Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.
“Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.