This is true if you believe that there is a final justice. However, in a secularizing society that doesn’t believe in God or final judgement, if you want justice it has to be here and now since it will not come any other way.
That concept comes from the belief that it is worse to punish an innocent than to let a culpable go free. Call that utilitarian if you will but it has nothing to do with a hypothetical final judgment.
It's valuable for understanding the NT, but not considered binding as law.
Apart from the particular injustice of this and other cases, it would behoove everyone to be a little more circumspect and humble about what we believe we know.
Never let the truth get in the way of a conviction.
This should have ended her career, as it is unforgivable. But she might be the epitome of the downside of "good ol boy" politics.
If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized.
They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct.
In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct.
While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.
no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is:
" On appeal, however, the People dispute that
Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as
it was not physically brutal.
According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be
“brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal.
May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)
The article says that they have immunity from civil prosecution for claims arising from procedural abuses in initiating a prosecution and in stating the state's case. That doesn't sound at all the same as "complete legal immunity". By my read of that sentence, if they commit a crime, they are still liable to criminal prosecution - you just couldn't initiate a civil prosecution against them.
Probably tricky to prosecute though, since you would have to prove intent versus, say, incompetence.
The penalties seem pretty low too, and not correlated with the potential damage.
Gut feelings almost invariably lead to witch hunts. Garrett was the witch this time around, how many others have also been hunted by this guy?
We're putting people in prison at 40 to 50 grand a year because, well, "instinct".