February 8, 2015 at 6:58 pm #36098
namelusSurvivalistFebruary 8, 2015 at 7:21 pm #36099
There are good and bad points to it.
The prevention of malicious prosecution such as was thrown at then Gov Perry and such is a good thing.
The problems with prosecuting many of these “crimes” at a local level, are multiple. Lack of knowledge, experience and yes even corruption can hinder the investigation. Several jurisdictions I know of personally would hand this sort of case off to the state people as they had the investigators, budget and lawyers to get it done as opposed to the locals.
I look at laws such as this as a dounle edged sword.
It would allow them to go after people like Sen Rangel for his illegal activity, but would they? They haven’t yet, at a local or state level.
I would much rather the “must act” clauses in the laws be expanded.
For example in Colorado, an officer must act in a case if domestic violence or be subject to arrest themselves. However in most other cases, there is no clause saying they must act.
How about a clause that LE must act on cases of check fraud, that alone would net a surprising number of representatives and senators.
As I said I can see good and bad in this bill, and in some jurisdictions it may be the only way to ensure fair prosecutions.February 8, 2015 at 7:25 pm #36101
I think they should be subject to Shahira law lol . Hands or head gets chopped off .February 8, 2015 at 8:10 pm #36105
No thanks, I’ll avoid anything that even remotely has to do with sharia idiocy.February 8, 2015 at 8:32 pm #36107
I don’t like it. If passed it would mean whichever party’s person held the State Attorney General’s seat would have no restraints on the corruption by members of the ruling party. There are too many one party states out there to grant potentially corrupt State Attorney Generals the power to give carte blanche to corruption amongst their own.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.