Two stonewalling and foot-dragging prosecutors lose their jobs last night

[Metaphor]

How does it work in Australia?

I'm not looking to play gotcha I really want to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(New_South_Wales)

The ODPP consists of:
the Director, two Deputy Directors, and their legal and administrative support staff;
the Crown Prosecutors and their administrative support staff;
the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, the solicitors, witness assistance officers, and administrative support staff employed in the Solicitor for Public Prosecution's Office; and,
the Corporate Services Division.

The Director, Deputy Directors, the Crown Prosecutors, and the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions are statutorily appointed office holders under the DPP Act.

Politicians should and do face the electorate. The person who scrapes roadkill off the highways or signs gay marriage licenses should be appointed on merit.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, that whole county clerk denying people marriage licenses made me rethink the whole 'elect' everybody thing. Something more like the Australian model would be better, methinks. I have never put great thought into the minor persons I find the ballot (though recent events have caused me to be more interested, and boy, the information to make informed electoral choices of the county clerk etc just isn't there). Electing the mayor, the county administrator, the city council person, the state representatives and senators, the governor, the federal representatives and senators and the president seem like enough. I guess I have no problem with indirect appointments. The theory is that the more people an official can give jobs, the more temptation he or she has to do so dishonestly. But hey, I can spend the time I spend pondering over who I want to be my clerk on pondering whether the clerk my county administrator appointed is doing his or her job. And why do I vote for my county sheriff, but not my town police chief, or my state police comissioner, or the head of the FBI or US Marshals? Why only the Sheriff?

And why isn't the county administrator called the 'Count?' And why do we have 'Sheriffs' but not 'Shires?'

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes, the idea that holding people accountable to the voters has its problems. What happens when the majority of voters are ignorant assholes who support one of their own who panders to the marching morons? What happens when a moron goes into a voting booth faced with names for judgeships et al who they know nothing at all about?

I remember years ago here in Texas where a Larouchite was elected head of the Texas Democratic Party because he had good old American sounding name while his opponent has a funny polish name without vowels, obviously a furriner up to no good!

Here in Texas, we have pathetically low voter turnout in many off year races such as for Texas Education board, where the far right manages to turn out enoug fanatics to elect creationists and kooks to run our education system.

 

[bilby]

How does it work in Australia?

I'm not looking to play gotcha I really want to know.

In my state (Queensland), the DPP is appointed by the 'Governor in Council' (GiC)*, in accordance with the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984.

The Act stipulates that the DPP must be an Australian lawyer who has been admitted to practise for not less than 10 years, and may be dismissed by the GiC for 'misbehavior' or physical or mental incapacity; and MUST be dismissed if he becomes bankrupt; is AWOL for more than 14 consecutive working days (or 28 total days in a calendar year); or practices law (other than his duties as DPP) or engages in any other paid employment.

Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions are similarly appointed by the GiC; State prosecutors and other subordinate positions in the department are appointed under the Public Service Act (2008), and as such are straightforward government employees.





*The term 'Governor in Council' means the State Governor, who represents the Queen, acting on the guidance of the Executive Council. Customarily, the Governor does not express an opinion, and must do as the Executive Council decrees; also customarily, the Executive Council has the same membership as the cabinet - ie comprises the Premier and all of her Ministers - but in law, the Executive Council is quorate with just the Governor and two Ministers present. What all of that really boils down to is that the State Premier gets to hire and fire the DPP, but has to do so with the consent of her own parliamentary party colleagues, and of the Crown representative, who could (in principle) block any appointment. The Premier appoints the ministry (from the pool of elected Members of the Legislative Assembly); and is herself the elected leader of the party that controls the Legislative Assembly. This kind of web of unwritten customs and expectations, tempered by a handful of written statutory guidelines, is typical of British Commonwealth governments; Queensland has a less complex arrangement than the other states, and also has fewer checks on the power of the Premier, due to our unicameral legislature.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, that whole county clerk denying people marriage licenses made me rethink the whole 'elect' everybody thing. Something more like the Australian model would be better, methinks. I have never put great thought into the minor persons I find the ballot (though recent events have caused me to be more interested, and boy, the information to make informed electoral choices of the county clerk etc just isn't there). Electing the mayor, the county administrator, the city council person, the state representatives and senators, the governor, the federal representatives and senators and the president seem like enough. I guess I have no problem with indirect appointments. The theory is that the more people an official can give jobs, the more temptation he or she has to do so dishonestly. But hey, I can spend the time I spend pondering over who I want to be my clerk on pondering whether the clerk my county administrator appointed is doing his or her job. And why do I vote for my county sheriff, but not my town police chief, or my state police comissioner, or the head of the FBI or US Marshals? Why only the Sheriff?

And why isn't the county administrator called the 'Count?' And why do we have 'Sheriffs' but not 'Shires?'

Well, we used to have empires, led by emperors. Then we had kingdoms, led by kings. And now we have countries.

Any questions?

 

[Arctish]

If I lived in a county, I'd stand for election to the position of Count every time!

 

[Derec]

Federal prosecutors (i.e., US Attorneys) are not elected, but I've never seen it suggested that they have a greater tendency to "go bad" than elected district attorneys.

Not to mention equivalent officers in other countries. This tendency to elect so many officers directly is very uniquely American I think.

 

[Underseer]

I do not see why you see this as "good".
It's an example why DAs should not be an elected office. These two prosecutors lost their elections because they made politically unpopular decisions - but it is not the job of a DA to base their decisions on either politics or popularity. I mean what were they supposed to do? Base everything they do on how it will play in an election? That way you get somebody like Mike Nifong who decided to railroad the three innocent Duke students because he was up for election in a heavily black county.

No, they lost their jobs because they didn't do their jobs. A DA is supposed to convict criminals, not let them roam free. Why is it always the "small government" types who eagerly defend abuse of power by the government?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not see why you see this as "good".
It's an example why DAs should not be an elected office. These two prosecutors lost their elections because they made politically unpopular decisions - but it is not the job of a DA to base their decisions on either politics or popularity. I mean what were they supposed to do? Base everything they do on how it will play in an election? That way you get somebody like Mike Nifong who decided to railroad the three innocent Duke students because he was up for election in a heavily black county.

No, they lost their jobs because they didn't do their jobs. A DA is supposed to convict criminals, not let them roam free. Why is it always the "small government" types who eagerly defend abuse of power by the government?

But a DA isn't supposed to prosecute cases that he doesn't have a decent chance of winning. They're supposed to prosecute, not persecute.

When you have elected prosecutors you get miscarriages of justices because the DA wants to get reelected.

 

[RavenSky]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760734/tim-mcginty-ousted/

Thanks in large part to Black Lives Matter organizing, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez was also booted from office in Illinois. Alvarez, who waited more than a year to charge the officer who shot Laquan McDonald 16 times

good

excellent! It's about time, too.

Wow. Any DA who launches a smear campaign against anyone, let alone the mother of a shooting victim deserves to lose his job. The fact someone would defend such an asshole is unbelievable.

And I strongly suspect if the Cook County DA had waited a year to prosecute a black teenager for shooting a police officer, this forum would have had 10 to 20 apopletic threads started by our resident "un PCers".

^^^ that and a whole lot more

 

[RavenSky]

The responses to Derec don't address his underlying point: that the DA should not be an elected position.

Although I disagree this was actually Derec's underlying point, I don't disagree with you.

A prosecutor should make decisions consistent with the law as established by an elected legislature and not on the basis of what can get them re-elected.

I agree; however these two DA's did not make their decisions consistent with the law as established by an elected legislature.

There are plenty of methods for overseeing a DA and making sure they do their job correctly without politicizing the position.

Do tell

 

[laughing dog]

No, they lost their jobs because they didn't do their jobs. A DA is supposed to convict criminals, not let them roam free. Why is it always the "small government" types who eagerly defend abuse of power by the government?

But a DA isn't supposed to prosecute cases that he doesn't have a decent chance of winning. They're supposed to prosecute, not persecute.

How is prosecuting someone who you believe is guilty persecution just because the chances of winning are not "decent"?

When you have elected prosecutors you get miscarriages of justices because the DA wants to get reelected.

And when you get appointed DAs, you get miscarriages of justice because the DA wants to please his appointer or avoid getting axed. Anyone remember the firings of federal prosecuting attorneys by the Bush administration in 2006?

 

[Mumbles]

Although I disagree this was actually Derec's underlying point, I don't disagree with you.

A prosecutor should make decisions consistent with the law as established by an elected legislature and not on the basis of what can get them re-elected.

I agree; however these two DA's did not make their decisions consistent with the law as established by an elected legislature.

There are plenty of methods for overseeing a DA and making sure they do their job correctly without politicizing the position.

Do tell

Personally, I'm still partial to "keep these police shooting cases out of the hands of local DAs entirely". There will probably be further issues with sending them to state-level DAs rather than local ones, but letting the locals that work with these cops run these cases is obviously not working in far too many cases, including the McDonald and Rice shootings.

But in the meantime, you work with what you have, and what the people had in these cases was the ability to vote out the corrupt in favor of newer people, so that's what they did.

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah, that whole county clerk denying people marriage licenses made me rethink the whole 'elect' everybody thing. Something more like the Australian model would be better, methinks.

Again, I don't disagree, but it still doesn't address the issue of removing someone like Kim Davis. Whether a person is elected or appointed, if they are not doing their jobs and following the laws, there needs to be a mechanism in place to remove them. In the cases of these two DA's, that mechanism is that they were not re-elected. Most of us are glad of that. Some people are not. In the case of Kim Davis, she will probably be re-elected. Most of us will be unhappy with that, but obviously enough people will be fine with her refusals to do her job according to the law.

When people are appointed, it is the same thing. It took forever until Judge Moore was removed from office, and even now a lot of people are unhappy about that. Meanwhile, others like him stay in office because we can't vote them out, and their superiors don't proceed to have them removed.

I have never put great thought into the minor persons I find the ballot (though recent events have caused me to be more interested, and boy, the information to make informed electoral choices of the county clerk etc just isn't there).

This is very sadly true. Moreover, many positions are supposedly non-partisan, so they don't list the party of the person on the ballot. either. At least that would be a bit of a guide as to how they might think/act in office.

Electing the mayor, the county administrator, the city council person, the state representatives and senators, the governor, the federal representatives and senators and the president seem like enough. I guess I have no problem with indirect appointments. The theory is that the more people an official can give jobs, the more temptation he or she has to do so dishonestly. But hey, I can spend the time I spend pondering over who I want to be my clerk on pondering whether the clerk my county administrator appointed is doing his or her job. And why do I vote for my county sheriff, but not my town police chief, or my state police comissioner, or the head of the FBI or US Marshals? Why only the Sheriff?

And why isn't the county administrator called the 'Count?' And why do we have 'Sheriffs' but not 'Shires?'

 

[RavenSky]

Personally, I'm still partial to "keep these police shooting cases out of the hands of local DAs entirely". There will probably be further issues with sending them to state-level DAs rather than local ones, but letting the locals that work with these cops run these cases is obviously not working in far too many cases, including the McDonald and Rice shootings.

But in the meantime, you work with what you have, and what the people had in these cases was the ability to vote out the corrupt in favor of newer people, so that's what they did.

Agree on all counts

 

[Sarpedon]

And why do I vote for my county sheriff, but not my town police chief, or my state police comissioner, or the head of the FBI or US Marshals? Why only the Sheriff?

I know I pepper my posts with humorous points, but this one is actually serious. Why is the head of the county law enforcement department the only law enforcement head that is subject to being elected directly? Personally, I think it would make sense to call the county adminsitrator the 'Sheriff,' and have him/her appoint the head of the county police force. (if any, I don't see why, when a county is dominated by a single city, they don't just disband the county apparatus and let the city do everything. They do this in Honolulu and the island of Oahu, but don't in Illinois' Cook County, for example).

 

[Terrell]

Although I disagree this was actually Derec's underlying point, I don't disagree with you.

I agree; however these two DA's did not make their decisions consistent with the law as established by an elected legislature.

There are plenty of methods for overseeing a DA and making sure they do their job correctly without politicizing the position.

Do tell

Personally, I'm still partial to "keep these police shooting cases out of the hands of local DAs entirely". There will probably be further issues with sending them to state-level DAs rather than local ones, but letting the locals that work with these cops run these cases is obviously not working in far too many cases, including the McDonald and Rice shootings.

But in the meantime, you work with what you have, and what the people had in these cases was the ability to vote out the corrupt in favor of newer people, so that's what they did.

I think this is pretty much the right approach. Don't allow local prosecutors to handle cases of police misconduct, instead require state or federal ones to do so.

To force the issue you probably need a law that makes it a felony for a police officer to fail to report police misconduct that he's aware of to state or federal prosecutors. Said report needs to be detailed, in writing, and submitted within 48 hours of knowing of said misconduct. Prosecute this vigorously.

 

[Metaphor]

When people are appointed, it is the same thing. It took forever until Judge Moore was removed from office, and even now a lot of people are unhappy about that. Meanwhile, others like him stay in office because we can't vote them out, and their superiors don't proceed to have them removed.

Kim Davis does not need to be elected or 'appointed'. The government advertises a vacancy and people send in their résumés, people are shortlisted and interviewed, and then someone is hired.

And then if they're not doing their job properly, they have a time-limited window to improve their performance or they get fired.

It isn't that complex.

This is very sadly true. Moreover, many positions are supposedly non-partisan, so they don't list the party of the person on the ballot. either. At least that would be a bit of a guide as to how they might think/act in office.

Have you any idea how strange all of this sounds to non-Americans? Why is a glorified secretary 'in office'? Do you elect your local librarians??

 

[Sarpedon]

Umm, you don't speak for all non-americans. I know from personal experience the city clerk in France is an important office.

But of course, you are the expert in anything you proclaim yourself to be.

 

[Metaphor]

Umm, you don't speak for all non-americans. I know from personal experience the city clerk in France is an important office.

But of course, you are the expert in anything you proclaim yourself to be.

What does the city clerk in France do, and why is electing them a much better idea than hiring someone on merit?