A prosecutor is the person who should know the case inside out and back to front and be as certain of guilt as they can possibly be, if not he or she should not be in the court room, this knowledge and dedication to the truth is why they are so powerful.
I have a charge where police report doesn't at all match body cam. DAs can as bad a bad cops. They enforce consequences on whatever is in police report without looking into it. Jail. Bail. Bail conditions that are expensive, shameful ankle bracelets, tedious and time consuming appointments, endless motions and trial delays, dragged out in hopes you will fail so they can drum up bail violation charges, throw you in jail, increase bail, etc.. In 2015 & 17. I reported my local department and some officers to the ACLU and DOJ. The Oconomowoc Police Department was being clearly racist in its policing and ignoring hate crimes. Then in 2019, 48, no criminal history, I have been made into a criminal. I have been awaiting a trial and on conditions of bail since 3/19. The current offer dismisses 39 bail jumping charges and I get to "pick" crimes to plead guilty to. I feel i have been punished by the courts for refusing to accept a plea bargain. I was also force to get a court appointed attorney even though I wanted to just plead guilty in 9/19. The 1st one bailed just before a scheduled trial. I now owe him $4800. I have had over 50 court dates. I had no idea how corrupt & devastating to people and families it all is. Then to be threatened to prison and told you can still work for 19 cents an hour. What an insanely abusive system this is when someone is falsely charged.
The Judge only maintains peace and order in the court. The jury is powerful because they decide verdicts in criminal cases, but it’s not enough. It’s the prosecutor. He/she is the one trying to persuade the jury that the defendant is guilty. It really does make sense as to why prosecutors are the powerful ones in court.
Just coming across this. But a judge can lesson charges, enforces sentencing and even can overrule a jury verdict. So I don’t see how the prosecutor has more power. At least in Florida they don’t.
Not true in the least. The justice is the one who ultimately interprets the law and renders a decision based on the law. Yes a prosecutor is powerful, but no where near as powerful as a judge. This woman is merely making a claim, not a fact.
The courts went full force at me when my ex made false allegations. I even went to jail. Then turns out she got caught with perjury. She was not charged. I don't even think she was warned. Instead the seeked a lite sentence for me of probation. I can't wrap my mind around any of it
I know a former states attorney's office employee (the prosecution). They told me face to face...their job, their goal was to get "A CONVICTION, and not necessarily a conviction of the actual guilty party. He went on to explain that IF they thought they had enough evidence to prosecute 'person A', but not enough to prosecute 'person B' that they would go after 'person A' even if they knew that 'person B' was the guilty party. "In our business, its all about the conviction. We need a conviction to pacify the victim's family, and the public".
I always figured that, I understand why they say it's not about the Truth it's what they can prove in court, the prosecution only want a W, to put on they resume I understood they don't care if the person is truly innocent and that's sad to send someone to prison or give them quadruple years crazy world we in....
Let's be honest though. Even if you were innocent, you could still go to jail for life if you don't take the plea bargain. Better to be innocent but a criminal and face 25 years in jail than innocent and get life in prison.
I would take the risk of 10 years in prison if I was innocent. A miscarriage of justice to me would be for the good of society, since this would give me the psychological tools to terminate the prosecutor and others like him.
The solution is to reduce the power the prosecutor, the defense should be able to challenge the charging decision of the DA. To force them to explain why they charged a Defendant with a certain crime. Then the judge can decide if that charge is appropriate and can prevent the DA from bringing that charge.
taking the pled is literally saying you did it I would not agree to something that I didn’t do if I was in this position but then again I would take the pled to not get life..in prison
America to ok but people are dumb. Liberal's think the can up date the constitution with out a constitutional convention. People are a joke. The are tyrannical and dont see it.
Too powerful. Wapo put out a good article about the power of the prosecutor, profiling Andrew Weismann and noted how most prosecutors will overcharge a victim (they say accused, but for truthful purposes-victim) hoping that the mountain of charges would lead them to go broke and take the plea. Remember: it costs a prosecutors NOTHING to file charges. It costs a defendant everything to defend against it. Ever wonder why prosecutors and defense attorneys seem to be almost collegial before a judge walks in? If it weren't legal, the whole court system would/should be considered a big rico violation.
This is one of the reason why innocent people are in jail. Oh, you're poor and can't afford proper representation??? If you take this please deal, you'll have a felony and go to jail for two years. If you go to court you'll fail (because you're poor), and I'll send you to jail for 25 years.
in the first example, the fact that a judge wanted to let somebody "off the hook" and prosecution didn't want to means nothing to me. Prosecution charges and pursues a conviction. The guilty/not guilty verdict is up to the fact finder which is with the judge or jury.
Prosecutors is how our justice system gives a back door for the rich and corrupt to be above the law. They just choose not to charge people who donate to them or have connections or give them immunity through insignificant plea deals. Meanwhile a regular person gets unfair and unrelated charges thrown at them and forced to prove their innocence or go to jail.
Part of the issue is that prosecutors are incentivized to seek a conviction and have people thrown in jail because they are elected. You’ll often see then run on being “tough on crime” which is a message to which voters respond positively . Same with judges (though they can’t openly discuss how they would rule or their political leanings) they also run in being “tough on crime” and “keeping the community safe”.unfortunately for voters that often translates to successful convictions and throwing people in jail.
They're also often the worst, most unsympathetic people, too. It's funny, it's like someone that goes into a job to put people in jail, might not be a great person to begin with. Go figure! Shout out to Kopmala Harris.
Prosecutors will obviously seem like the bad guy but they want to help solve crimes and put people to justice. They have to be hellbent on getting a guilty verdict or else evidence could be lost and criminals could walk freely.
Undead WalUwUgi they’re more of devils advocate. They don’t care if the person is innocent or guilty they’re just trying to send someone to prison with most charges possible.
Yea, well, some attorney's do Prosecute, for example, Monsanto. And won bigly for that poor janitor with Cancer from Roundup. I see what she's saying in the video, it ia odd that a judge cannot choose to lessen a sentence. But a prosecutor or a defender can seem the 'bad guy' in any given scenario. I bet we all wonder how someone could defend Epstein, or Ted Bundy, but they do.
There are good and bad apples in every level of the justice system, particularly in America. Just as there are many prosecutors who care only about winning, there are also those who care about sending the right person to jail. This is seen, as I said, in every level. There are judges who remain truly impartial and those who support one side over the other. There are defense attorneys who truly believe their client to be innocent and those who work for their client despite knowing that they committed the crime. There are police officers who look for the person who committed the crime and those that search for someone who could conveniently carry the blame for it. Not fair to say that they are all pathetic.
@@brickcitybikeman3108 some of them. But I cannot agree with that statement. I know a couple police officers that had hearts of gold. They would help anyone they could and even give them the shirts from their backs. At first they were great officers for the community. But there are times when a job like that gets to a person and affects them mentally. Both of those cops eventually became drunks and were stopping people in traffic or on a call and not even giving the people a chance to give their side of the story. At times they would just take them down hard to the ground and scream stop resisting when the people were in fact not resisting. They literally hurt people. One of them was on Xanax for his nerves and anxiety. Law states if you have mental health issues you cannot carry a gun. I think the same should apply to cops. The other cop who also became a drunkard started beating on his wife. She is a family friend and would never admit how she was getting bruises and black eyes but we all knew. That cop ended up shooting himself in the head. He killed himself leaving two teenage kids without a father. Maybe he wasn't the best father but nobody in their right mind wants their parents to die or take their life. I'm just glad he didn't take his wife's life as well. These were very good people before they became officers. The other cop ended up being fired.
This is a little bit of a misunderstanding of the court system. The prosecutor doesn’t have the final say on what the person gets charged with in a bench trial. They are not on the same footing as the judge. The judge can certainly find if that the prosecutor did not bear the burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, that’s a bench trial where the judge is the factfinder. So there’s really no situation where the judge has no choice and cannot override what the prosecutor wants to charge.
So was the video going to lead into whether or not that power is good or bad? It just stated that prosecutors hold a lot of power, sometimes rivaling the judge's. There isn't really a problem there.
There's a problem. With most case ending in plea deal even if the defendant is innocent because prosecutor can threaten you with Maximum sentencing Like 10 to 20 years if you go to the trial.
@@Platoqp She literally said that prosecutors are whimsical and unethical and that our criminal justice system needs reform that could come from electing prosecutors.
I hope you can answer my question. I was falsely accused of shoving someone and a lot of drug addicts in the apartment building i live in took this person's side and gave police the same story. This was a woman. 1st of all i wouldn't put my hands on a woman unless my life was under threat. The prosecutor took all of these peoples words as truth. When jn fact each one of them have some form of deception to law enforcement, perjury, fraud, obstructing an investigation on their recent criminal histories. Most of them have a lot of drug felonies and violence on their criminal histories. Im not perfectly clean on my criminal record but i havent been into any kind of trouble in over 17 years and the troubles i did have were misdemeanors. I was going tontake this to trial by jury. I knew there was no credibility from any witness. The woman that accused me also told police she was pregnant. Well... She wasnt. She lied about that. My 74 year old mother has a horrible nervous condition and has had a nervous breakdown in the past. She was so nervous about me going to trial that i just accepted a diversion. I am seriously considering dropping the diversion and going to trial because my mother is still a nervous train wreck. Now to my question. Who is acually in power to investigate the county prosecutor? And even fire him? I wasnt even lowed to present any evidence which i have a lot of it. I had to buy home security cameras. The landlord is worthless. My wife and i are both disabled. So its been tough looking for a place to fit our budget. But who would i make a complaint to about the county prosecutor in Indiana? Who has power over this guy? State attorney general? Would that be the place to start? I need advice. It would be greatly appreciated.
as a former prosecutor... it depends on the judge. being the prosecutor is the heaviest burden, it is not easy, and certainly not for the faint of heart. and judges to what they want regardless of the prosecutor.
I think the Judge has More Power she can Make Decisions Just Based Evidence. Evidence Prevails that's the First thing the Judge will Request is Evidence. Prosecutors See the Evidence but Always try to Plea Bargain. Jury is Very Powerful as well that's all they request is evidence.
The most powerful person/people in the court room is/are.. 1) the jury… regardless of the law, facts and instructions the jury CAN REFISE TO CONVICT ..and there is NO law nor case law that supports ANY action against a Justus for refusing to convict. The classic cases… In the 1860s…. There was a law..”the runaway fugitive slave act” that REQUIRED a citizen to hold a black person and turn them over to authorities if there was ANY SUSPICION that the person might have been a run away slave…. People in the north REFUSED to comply and hid and helped the slaves…. Some people were brought to trial for breaking this law…. And juries refused to vote suit ly..REGARDLESS of the evidence and regardless of the law…. Initially some jurists were charged with crimes. But NO jurist was ever convicted of any crime… because THE JURY HAS THE FINAL SAY. Look up Jury Nullification
The most powerful people in the courts are the jury. Interesting that there's no room in your triangle for them. The jury must no longer be a rubber-stamp for the ABA. In fact if we would establish( the right word) rule of law and due process juries must run the proceedings and decide all matters civil and criminal. There will be a need for trained legal professionals to replace the criminal enterprise called the American Bar Association.This new class of court officers must be imbued with and loyal to our cherished foundational values. What sacrifices are you willing to make for this to be brought into being?
@@strategygalactic That judge might well be a presiding prosecutor. Stand on your rights and they'll be glad to show you you have none not rented from them in attorney fees.
Prosecutor took the liberty to press charges on behalf of my childs mother without her knowledge consent and 3 months later with no valid probable cause affadavit.
If you were a juror in this case, what would you vote? Guilty? Or not guilty? This is the scenario and the facts that are available to you. 2 boys (age 12 we will call A and K for context) are swimming at a community pool when K notices 2 known bullies enter. K tells his friend A that they should leave because he wants to avoid confrontation with these bullies. So the 2 boys leave the pool when these bullies age 12 and 14 who are siblings - we will call J and N for context). The bullies decide to chase after the 2 boys who are leaving the pool and K calls their mom for help. A and K end up at A's house and retreat inside their gate. A goes inside to get his dad while K's mom is on her way. Bully N stands outside the gate of A's house threatening them both with an AK47 saying she's gonna go and get it and "put holes" in the both of them. They walk off to get said gun when A's dad comes out and confronts the bullies and then K's mom shows up. K runs to moms vehicle scared and tells her they are being threatened and everything that has transpired. K's mom then pulls up next to bullies and also confronts them. Bully N bows up to K's moms car window cursing at her, Mom can't drive away at this point because N is too close to vehicle that she could run her over if she drove off so in order to protect her son inside she gets out of the vehicle and puts herself in between the vehicle and N to prevent her from getting too close to her son. Mom walks over to Bully N who was standing in passenger side of vehicle and puts finger in front of N's face (not making contact) and tells her to stay away from her son and if she does in fact "put holes" in her son or attempts to, that she would shoot her back. A and A's dad are about a cars length behind them with bullies back facing them and trees to their right blocking A's dad view a bit. Bully N hits moms finger out of her face and mom blocks Ns hand and N starts hitting and kicking mom. K comes to moms defense and then J starts joining in hitting and kicking them both. Mom is trying to push N off of her when finally A's dad pulls N off of K's mom. When K's mom finally is able to get away, she calls the police to notify them of the bullies threats and the assault that took place. A's dad told the police that K's mom was the one that hit N first (but from his vantage point, he could not see bully N and that N hit mom first). Boy A testifies he saw bully N hit K's mom first and dad take child off of the mom and drop her to the floor possibly causing her injury. But A's dad would not let police interview his son because he saw what actually happened. Based of A's dads testimony, K's mom was arrested and charged with injury to a child. A third degree felony. Child's injuries are allegedly some redness on her lip, No broken bones, no blood not cut skin. K's moms injuries were hair clumps pulled out, scratches on her legs and scrapes on her arms and head. She went to collect her child and was assaulted and was the one being arrested when she was the one that called the police. If you were a jury, knowing these things. Would you convict her? What means necessary are allowed when defending yourself and child against a child who assaulted you and threatened your child's life.
What she said is factual but I disagree with the interpretation. The prosecutor doesn't choose the minimum sentence for a charge. She even notes this in her video. If you believe the minimum sentences are too harsh, you should act to change the minimum sentences. Which a DA cannot do.
But the DA choose which charges to bring, KNOWING what the mandatory minimum of that charge is. In order to scare a the fender and taking a plea deal. The charge might even be inappropriate. That's why the defense should be able to challenge the charging decision of a DA to force them to explain their charging decision in open court to see if it is indeed appropriate.
It’s easy to fix. Like in europe- jusge has the last say. Even if prosecutors ask 20 years jusge thinks it’s 2 - it will be 2, if prosecutor do not like it, he can subit an appeal- easy
In my country they're salary can be above a million btw Google said salary didn't say per year so I assume per month but that's in Rands it's probably like 80k dollars per month if you translate but this is after 8 years experience
Tell that to the people who are breaking the law and still getting away with it. Ultimately, evil either wins or loses. It doesn't matter what's wrong or right, sadly. It only matters what can be proven in court and what the jury believes or gets everyone to believe. If you believe in God, then there will be a time when right and wrong will be judged. In this case, no one can escape the truth.
@@joelwilliams8887 it still doesn't make the prosecutor in the room the most powerful. The most powerful person in the room is the smartest. I learned being innocent isn't enough and proving your innocent isn't enough because if people don't know what a falsified affidavit is . If they don't know they're rights and which are being violated during malicious prosecution. Evil wins. Even if case is dismissed. If you are wronged and noone is held accountable evil wins.. But if you know the law and can prove legal abuse. Then the most powerful person in the court room is the smartest person in the courtroom. Knowledge is the power not a person
I misspoke. I'd like to add my 4 cents but I won't. I was arguing another case when I realized how it was just like. But I didn't say anything at that time because I needed time to weigh it.
I commend prosecutors especially the one who worked the jodi arias case. He is probably one of my favorite and most intense prosecuting attorneys I studied for quite some time. God bless the interns and our future prosecutors. Much love. Melanie
NOW THIS ... i appreciate your work and videos, yet having the read news content is not helpful to multitasking. Please don't make me read videos. Thank you.
Since this dating back to the 1980's and based on a book that Bazelo's Emily wrote in the Brooklyn New York District Court this decision could of been overturned and appealed by taking it to the higher courts system such as The Supreme Court instead of following the prosecutors findings and punishments!
I Agree we Need Justice and Reform.These Crimes have got to stop against hard working people and Justice is Needed. In All Forms of Law even the Police Department. Reform these agencies. Greatly Needed.
This is idiotic. The premise that a judge not having a say in what charges a prosecutor brings make the prosecutor unfairly powerful is ridiculous. The role of the judge is and has always been to be the sort of “referee” to make sure procedures are being followed - not to actually make a play himself. Credibility lost. Just because I lean left doesn’t mean I want my news source to skew information to “fit” my ideology.
@Liza Tanzawa You realize that in order to go to prison one must first commit a crime right? And not all prisons are private, but you need a conviction to be sent to any prison regardless.
@@dfmrcv862 not always, sometimes people are wrongly accused, no justice system is good at the point of 100% right arrests, they plea guilty so they don't need to through trial, pay bail or other absurdities, I would like you to watch the Netflix series "When they see us", there is a particular scene which they offer guilty plea so they can "go" and to children nonetheless also public defendants have hundreds or even thousands of cases to take care of, how are you so sure that the justice system is good enough to review every and each one and not forget someone in the prison system? you can't guarantee that... the point in the video is that prosecutors have too much bargain power compared to defendants which make the justice system unequal and turn it into another structural problem in maintaining inequalities especially to people who can't afford a good and exclusive lawyer
@@sungyoon93 Show me the innocent parties that have been convicted and I will gladly side with you that they should be set free and compensated, but you need to point at the specific instances of injustice, not just say “it exists, therefore the entire system is flawed and needs heavy change".Like I said, you need evidence in order to convict.
@@dfmrcv862 lol you can go to prison without breaking a crime there has been a lot of false arrest on guys who they thought they had a Warrent or looked liked the suspect.
@@caddiman1990 Okay first of all, there is a difference between a holding cell and prison, and since we have this thing called Due Process, so even if you look like a suspect, you wont go to prison since fingerprints, DNA, and dental records are an easily accessible things for defendants and their attorneys. Also I have never heard of someone going to prison for “breaking a crime"...
people are revolting in the comments because they think prosecutors have taken away the power in the Court Room... y'all, prosecutor have existed for ages, nothing has changed
They are not the most powerful i the court room the holy spirit is and the holy spirit is always present in the court room smetimes the gift of discernment comes in from the court room and the holy spirit brought it on
Maybe if they stopped commiting crimes or still take prison seriously they wouldn't have to go through the whole thing to begin with, something that people doesn't get is that prisions are not places were you are going to get beat up 24/7 by the guards, the prisioners are the problem they are the ones that will but is because they lack any form of respect towards authority, the guards cannot touch you unless you do something violent otherwise they can face heavy legal actions the moment they do, prisioners have become aware of this so they no longer fear getting send to jail wich in consequence makes irrelevant the whole point of prisions and punishments to begin with, it doesn't help that many of them have access to commodities they shouldn't have access to begin with. We don't need weaker punishment, what we need are harsher punishments and prison conditions so they don't want to come back after getting realized, is also important to deal with the reasons that force them to commit crimes to begin with.
