West Memphis 3 Freed

[The Minsky Moment]

  But by adding one, or more, levels of separation it avoids the phone call from an MP or MLA saying 'drop this charge against my political contributor or I'll have you fired'.

POlitical, but not politicized - I don't think that's a distinction that's possible to make. 

Scenario above never happens - that's what the distinction means.  A few years back, Bush fired a few US attorneys and there were vague accusations about it being related to their failure to purse voter fraud cases.  Even though the evidence was weak, it became a huge scandal.  The norm and tradition is that these are non-partisan appointments, and deviations are considered unusual and scandalous.

If a member of Congress made the call you just indicated, the likely result would not be compliance or a firing.  It would be indictment of the member of Congress.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think we should contract all our legal decisions to magical flying unicorns.

[Ed Anger]

I think we should contract all our legal decisions to magical flying unicorns.

Or like on the robot planet from Futurama, an old Mac.

[Barrister]

I think we should contract all our legal decisions to magical flying unicorns.

Or like on the robot planet from Futurama, an old Mac.

Waiting for a human judge can be tedious enough - I'd hate to be starring at that spinning beach ball waiting for my decision.

[Barrister]

  But by adding one, or more, levels of separation it avoids the phone call from an MP or MLA saying 'drop this charge against my political contributor or I'll have you fired'.

POlitical, but not politicized - I don't think that's a distinction that's possible to make. 

Scenario above never happens - that's what the distinction means.  A few years back, Bush fired a few US attorneys and there were vague accusations about it being related to their failure to purse voter fraud cases.  Even though the evidence was weak, it became a huge scandal.  The norm and tradition is that these are non-partisan appointments, and deviations are considered unusual and scandalous.

If a member of Congress made the call you just indicated, the likely result would not be compliance or a firing.  It would be indictment of the member of Congress.

If I talk to the old-timers around here, such phone calls were known to happen.  Now mostly it's a result of an MLA not thinking through what he is saying, but still.

But bias is a lot more subtle than that.  If USDA positions are only a brief stop over in your career, then you're going to be worried about what your next position is going to be.  That's certainly going to impact what cases you focus on, and which cases you take an easy resolution on.

I don't want to get all Marti-esque, but I find the US system of prosecutions shocking, and am amazed at how blase you can be about it.  "Oh sure I was appointed once the Obama administration came into power, but don't worry, I'm not politicized".

[The Minsky Moment]

But bias is a lot more subtle than that.  If USDA positions are only a brief stop over in your career, then you're going to be worried about what your next position is going to be.  That's certainly going to impact what cases you focus on, and which cases you take an easy resolution on.

That is a problem no matter what the method of appointment is.
Experience suggests, however, that the former US attorneys that have the most successfuly subsequent careers do so by acquiring reputations for probity and toughness, not for doing errands for pols.
For example, Rudy G. made his rep not by carrying water for the Reagan administration (which appointed him) but by going in hard on the mob and by prosecuting Boesky and Milken (guys who had friends in high GOP places).
That dynamic has a problem of its own, but it is a problem relating to the fact that there can be life after being a US attorney, and not due to the precise method of appointment.

I don't want to get all Marti-esque, but I find the US system of prosecutions shocking, and am amazed at how blase you can be about it.  "Oh sure I was appointed once the Obama administration came into power, but don't worry, I'm not politicized".

I find it a good deal more troubling that autonomous magistrates with wide-ranging powers and near unlimited jurisdiction can operate without effective supervision and constraint in certain civil law systems.
I agree the Canadian system as you describe seems a more happy medium.  But at least federally there is little impetus for reform because other than the mini-scandal a few years back, there is no real sense the system is being materially abused.

[Barrister]

But bias is a lot more subtle than that.  If USDA positions are only a brief stop over in your career, then you're going to be worried about what your next position is going to be.  That's certainly going to impact what cases you focus on, and which cases you take an easy resolution on.

That is a problem no matter what the method of appointment is.
Experience suggests, however, that the former US attorneys that have the most successfuly subsequent careers do so by acquiring reputations for probity and toughness, not for doing errands for pols.
For example, Rudy G. made his rep not by carrying water for the Reagan administration (which appointed him) but by going in hard on the mob and by prosecuting Boesky and Milken (guys who had friends in high GOP places).
That dynamic has a problem of its own, but it is a problem relating to the fact that there can be life after being a US attorney, and not due to the precise method of appointment.

I don't want to get all Marti-esque, but I find the US system of prosecutions shocking, and am amazed at how blase you can be about it.  "Oh sure I was appointed once the Obama administration came into power, but don't worry, I'm not politicized".

I find it a good deal more troubling that autonomous magistrates with wide-ranging powers and near unlimited jurisdiction can operate without effective supervision and constraint in certain civil law systems.
I agree the Canadian system as you describe seems a more happy medium.  But at least federally there is little impetus for reform because other than the mini-scandal a few years back, there is no real sense the system is being materially abused.

The federal system came into place precisely because of the full-blown sponsorship scandal from a few years ago.

And as you point out, the dynamic you describe is equally as troubling.  Around here, most prosecutors do this for life (absent the chance at a judicial appointment, which certainly does happen).

[crazy canuck]

Prosecutors in the Canadian system make all kinds of small p political choices in the course of their decision of whether to proceed with a case or not.  I am not aware of those decisions being influenced by which government appointed them.

I am not sure your system is as different form the US system as you make out.

[dps]

But bias is a lot more subtle than that.  If USDA positions are only a brief stop over in your career, then you're going to be worried about what your next position is going to be.  That's certainly going to impact what cases you focus on, and which cases you take an easy resolution on.

That is a problem no matter what the method of appointment is.
Experience suggests, however, that the former US attorneys that have the most successfuly subsequent careers do so by acquiring reputations for probity and toughness, not for doing errands for pols.
For example, Rudy G. made his rep not by carrying water for the Reagan administration (which appointed him) but by going in hard on the mob and by prosecuting Boesky and Milken (guys who had friends in high GOP places).
That dynamic has a problem of its own, but it is a problem relating to the fact that there can be life after being a US attorney, and not due to the precise method of appointment.

I don't want to get all Marti-esque, but I find the US system of prosecutions shocking, and am amazed at how blase you can be about it.  "Oh sure I was appointed once the Obama administration came into power, but don't worry, I'm not politicized".

I find it a good deal more troubling that autonomous magistrates with wide-ranging powers and near unlimited jurisdiction can operate without effective supervision and constraint in certain civil law systems.
I agree the Canadian system as you describe seems a more happy medium.  But at least federally there is little impetus for reform because other than the mini-scandal a few years back, there is no real sense the system is being materially abused.

The federal system came into place precisely because of the full-blown sponsorship scandal from a few years ago.

What sponsorship scandal?  Are you talking about the Canadian federal system?  'Cause Minsky was talking about the U.S. federal system.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's only like 95 U.S. Attorneys in the country, I imagine most of the men actually trying cases, the "real" prosecutors, probably are in the Federal civil service for much of their careers.

Like most civil service jobs (and I see this, being a civil servant) you have a group of people who go in right out of college and who have their eyes on bigger things, and use it as a 1-2 year stepping stone. Then you have retirees from other things (military is common) who want to work another 20 years, then you have lifers (most of the civil service.)

[Barrister]

There's only like 95 U.S. Attorneys in the country, I imagine most of the men actually trying cases, the "real" prosecutors, probably are in the Federal civil service for much of their careers.

Like most civil service jobs (and I see this, being a civil servant) you have a group of people who go in right out of college and who have their eyes on bigger things, and use it as a 1-2 year stepping stone. Then you have retirees from other things (military is common) who want to work another 20 years, then you have lifers (most of the civil service.)

But in comparison to your 95 US Attorneys... there is *one* federal appointment in Canada - the Director of Public Prosecutions, Brian Saunders.  And as my one time boss I've met him - he comes across as a sweet old man.  And he was the least political boss I've ever had.  And he was utterly non-political from when I remember his appointment.

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/dpp-dpp.html

Hell his public service goes back to the liberal era.

Like I said I'm just  surprised how blase americans are about how political their prosecutors are.

[dps]

There's only like 95 U.S. Attorneys in the country, I imagine most of the men actually trying cases, the "real" prosecutors, probably are in the Federal civil service for much of their careers.

Like most civil service jobs (and I see this, being a civil servant) you have a group of people who go in right out of college and who have their eyes on bigger things, and use it as a 1-2 year stepping stone. Then you have retirees from other things (military is common) who want to work another 20 years, then you have lifers (most of the civil service.)

But in comparison to your 95 US Attorneys... there is *one* federal appointment in Canada - the Director of Public Prosecutions, Brian Saunders.  And as my one time boss I've met him - he comes across as a sweet old man.  And he was the least political boss I've ever had.  And he was utterly non-political from when I remember his appointment.

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/dpp-dpp.html

Hell his public service goes back to the liberal era.

Like I said I'm just  surprised how blase americans are about how political their prosecutors are.

I think that you're really overestimating how political our prosecutors are.

[Barrister]

There's only like 95 U.S. Attorneys in the country, I imagine most of the men actually trying cases, the "real" prosecutors, probably are in the Federal civil service for much of their careers.

Like most civil service jobs (and I see this, being a civil servant) you have a group of people who go in right out of college and who have their eyes on bigger things, and use it as a 1-2 year stepping stone. Then you have retirees from other things (military is common) who want to work another 20 years, then you have lifers (most of the civil service.)

But in comparison to your 95 US Attorneys... there is *one* federal appointment in Canada - the Director of Public Prosecutions, Brian Saunders.  And as my one time boss I've met him - he comes across as a sweet old man.  And he was the least political boss I've ever had.  And he was utterly non-political from when I remember his appointment.

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/dpp-dpp.html

Hell his public service goes back to the liberal era.

Like I said I'm just  surprised how blase americans are about how political their prosecutors are.

I think that you're really overestimating how political our prosecutors are.

Or you are downplaying how political they appear.

That's the same argument as Minsky made - well they might be political appointments, but they're not politicized.

[Martinus]

at the Federal level they are explicit political patronage positions.

?  where would you get that idea ?

In the SDNY US attorney's office - which I am most familiar with -- most of the appointed US attorney's were former assistants in the office.  Of course it helps to have connections in DC, but they are all experienced prosecutors.

And yes at the state level, the DAs are elected, but at least in NY county - the candidates are all experienced prosecutors and the electoral campaigns focus on substantive issues. 

You can't really judge an entire country by what goes on in certain counties in Arkansas.

Clarify it for me though - on a change in the Whitehouse most of those USDA positions are fileld by the incoming adminisration.

Merely having experienced prosecutors is hardly the same as having independent prosecutors.

I can tell you that if the Alberta government were to change, I would expect our Deputy Minister to change, but that would be it.  When I was with the Feds, because of the Public Prosecution Service model nothing at all would change.

In Poland, prosecutors now operate like civil servants.

[grumbler]

The problem with elected judges is that same as with any other elected public official--shitholes like Arkansas tend to elect shitty officials.

The problem with electing judges is that the voters have no grounds on which to distinguish between the candidates other than rhetoric.  Choosing judges by lottery would be better - I can't think of a method that would be worse.