Yes/No Poll...If a torture case has about a 30% chance of ending in a successful jury conviction,

[Aloha Spirit]

If a CIA torture case has about a 30% chance of ending in a successful jury conviction, should the USDOJ still prosecute it?

[mmonk]

1. Those that vote no do not understand freedom or its concepts.

[Aloha Spirit]

2. I'm not convinced they should go forward with a case unless they have a decent chance of winning. On

the other hand, here's Holder from last week:

“Your job is not to win cases. Your job is to do justice. Your job is in every case, every decision that you make, to do the right thing,” he said, according to an Associated Press account of the unannounced appearance. “Anybody who asks you to do something other than that is to be ignored. Any policy that is at tension with that is to be questioned and brought to my attention. And I mean that.”

[Somawas]

3. Yeah they do.

Prosecuting weak cases is not much different from persecuting the innocent. And prosecution of the innocent is tyrannical.

[Aloha Spirit]

5. That's how I generally feel about it

maybe not tyrannical, but at least bad policy.

[rug]

4. Your premise has a 30% chance of being correct.

Ethics require a prosecution should not commence unless the charges can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here the victims, witnesses, audio, video, incriminating documents, established legal standards and statutes ensure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oddsmakers are not lawyers.

[Aloha Spirit]

6. Harsh!

I agree that the evidence shows that the CIA tortured beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that that ensures conviction of the CIA officers beyond a reasonable doubt, which would appear to also be a likelihood, would it not?

[rug]

7. Two things have to be proven; that it was done and that the defendant did it.

If the charges are brought, they should be able to prove both.

I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the political will is there to bring the charges in the first place.

[Aloha Spirit]

9. Ah well, I don't know what the right thing to do is,

but I do think that we're in a tough spot,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349698&mesg_id=8349698

It seems that we think prosecuting the CIA officers probably wouldn't be successful, but that the USDOJ should bring charges regardless of likelihood of success.
I'd say that's a tough spot.
I really can't imagine a prosecutor bringing charges if they didn't think they had a good chance of winning.

[Kaleva]

8. Otherwise, one is just engaging in witchhunts

Prosecuting people with the knowledge that the chance for convictions is so low is just unethical harassment.

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Anyone know where I can find what reasons the AG/SG are considered appropriate

when deciding whether or not to prosecute?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. You are missing a central point

A prosecutor in Tennessee has a 30% chance of gaining an obscenity conviction against DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES.

Yet any prosecutor who brought such a case should be imprisoned for life, IMO.

Though many prosecutors seem to have forgotten this, the prosecutor must believe the person will be convicted PROPERLY. And the prosecutor is a legal expert, able to recognize a valid, legally-effective defense that may be disregarded by non-expert jurors.

It's not just an odds game.

[Aloha Spirit]

12. Interesting. My poll is missing a central point?

I find your reply dishonest and argumentative.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. "dishonest"?

[Aloha Spirit]

15. yes

deceitful and intentionally misleading.
My question did not assume a right answer, not did it assume that a yes answer implies that the likelihood for conviction alone should be considered sufficient grounds for bringing charges.

[PeaceNikki]

17. When there's an airtight defense, it's silly and wrong to try to prosecute.

[TayTay]

14. If a food aid program has a 30% chance of saving a life, should you do it?

If a transplant operation only give a patient a 30% chance of survival, should you do it?

How many morals hairs can you split before you find you have no morals left to divide?

[Aloha Spirit]

16. To your questions, yes and yes.

One could argue that prosecuting someone is not as benign as running a food aid program, and that defendants' rights should be protected as well.

[Kaleva]

18. apples and oranges

It's moral and right to try one's utmost to save a life even if the odds are against them but it's immoral and unethical to bring charges against people when one knows the chances of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendents are guilty are slim.

I've often said that there is little difference between the far left and far right. Both sides use the same tactics and methods and believe the end result justifies the means.