A$$kroft wants to limit use of plea bargains (NYT top story)

[sexybomber]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/politics/23ASHC.html?hp

--- begin quote ---

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 — Attorney General John Ashcroft today made it tougher for federal prosecutors to strike plea bargains with criminal defendants, requiring attorneys to seek the most serious charges possible in almost all cases.

The policy directive issued by Mr. Ashcroft is the latest in a series of steps the Justice Department has taken in recent months to combat what it sees as dangerously lenient practices by some federal prosecutors and judges.

--- snip ---

"The direction I am giving our U.S. attorneys today is direct and emphatic," Mr. Ashcroft said at a speech in Cincinnati. Except in "limited, narrow circumstances," he said, federal prosecutors must seek to bring charges for "the most serious, readily provable offense" that can be supported by the facts of the case.

--- more on link, end quote ---

All I can say is... WHY? I can't think of any conceivable reason why A$$kroft would want to do this, other than the simple fact that he is completely, totally, monstrously evil.

:scared: :grr: DRRGH!!! :grr:

[fizzana]

1. 96% of Federal cases in 2001 ended in plea bargains

out of a total of 60,000 cases. That means only 2,400 cases went to trial. Even if Ashcroft succeeds in reducing that to 50% of the Federal cases that would meanan increase in cases being tried from 2,400 to 30,000.

The system will collapse under it's own wait and people will have to wait years for a trial date.

Very smart.

[sexybomber]

2. oh boy. I never thought of that part.

We'll have to keep all those dangerous drug offenders locked up before their trials too... so hellooooooo even higher US prison populations.

[salin]

4. forgive the moment of tin foil

I don't usually indulge in this. But, now lets say he uses patriotI and if he gets it patriotII to declare (with little or no judicial review) protestors as aiding and abetting terrorists - or starts declaring peace organizations as terrorist organizations... and then starts going after noncompliant citizens (i.e., protestors greeting, say, Ashcroft at a speech)... with that kind of backlog waiting for trial - imagine how long one could keep dissenters held.

Hopefully we are years away from anything like that being able to happen. But everynow and again an analysis such as yours really makes brief shivers run down my spine.

[ibegurpard]

3. Stupid, stupid, stupid

Clog up the court system and take away a valuable tool from prosecutors...way to improves things, asshole!

[Bushfire]

5. This local article was posted yesterday in LBN

and sunk like a stone, but shows how they tried to censor corporate news media from covering the protestors. Even a corporate owned rag printed the hypocrisy.

"The act has met with widespread criticism from some who believe it tramples on civil rights. About 30 protesters holding flags emblazoned with peace signs and posters that read: "Patriot Act - No!" gathered outside the War Memorial before Ashcroft's speech began Monday morning. When media representatives tried to photograph them through a window, officials promptly closed the blinds."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/sep03/171762.asp