Selective Prosecution

Selective prosecution ex Wiki
QUOTE
In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted because of a bias. In the US, this defense is based upon the 14th Amendment, which requires that "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.
UNQUOTE
It is clear enough that American law recognises the concept. English law may be different. The Crown Prosecution Service alleges that it will prosecute or not according to whether it is in the public interest - see http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html which says
QUOTE
A prosecution is more likely to be required if:

1. a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
2. the offence was premeditated;
3. the offence was carried out by a group [ e.g. the Conservative Friends of Israel ];
4. the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child;
5. the victim of the offence was in a vulnerable situation [e.g. a taxpayer - Editor ] and the suspect took advantage of this;
6. the suspect was in a position of authority or trust [ e.g. Her Majesty's Prime Minister - Editor ] and he or she took advantage of this;
7. the suspect's previous convictions or the previous out-of-court disposals which he or she has received are relevant to the present offence;
8. the suspect is alleged to have committed the offence in breach of an order of the court;
9. a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence [ e.g. getting rid of corrupt politicians - Editor ];

A prosecution is less likely to be required if:

1. the suspect has been subject to any appropriate regulatory proceedings, or any punitive or relevant civil penalty which remains in place or which has been satisfactorily discharged, which adequately addresses the seriousness of the offending and any breach of trust involved; [ An excuse for letting politicians steal - Editor ]
2. the suspect has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but a suspect must not avoid prosecution or an out-of-court disposal solely because he or she pays compensation or repays the sum of money he or she unlawfully obtained); [ e.g. when a politician pays back fraudulent expenses - Editor ]

UNQUOTE
This has been abused to let politicians steal. So selective prosecution is practice not admitted policy.

 

Selective enforcement ex Wiki
QUOTE
Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from.

However, the converse can also be true. Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses, for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process which also reduces costs of governmental legal resources. Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly. These cases do give the police judicial power to some degree, but it is not possible for an officer not to use judgment at one level or another.
UNQUOTE
A fair article but abuses do happen. Police corruption does too.

 

Police Arrest Englishwoman For Banning Islamics From Her Beauty Salon [ 18 November 2015 ]
Because it is time to put her country first.

 

Police Refuse To Investigate Pakistani Racist For Abusing Jews [ 18 November 2015 ]
Are the police corrupt tools of a corrupt government? Have a look at Police Corruption or Police Brutality then decide. Or try the G20 Massacre to know about their enthusiasm for Perverting The Course Of Justice. Be aware that 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is in charge of the Met refuses to investigate Racist criminals or even admit that he has been told about their crimes if they happen to be Pakistanis called 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham.

 

Salford Student Union President Incites Racial Hatred [ 1 July 2017 ]
QUOTE
A Muslim student union leader has claimed she would like to 'oppress white people' and has suggested there would be an Islamic takeover if more people read the Koran.

Zamzam Ibrahim, who was elected President of Salford University's Student Union in March, also suggested friendship between men and women is un-Islamic and is opposed to the government's anti-radicalisation strategy.

The Swedish-Somali student officer also described the government's Prevent strategy as 'disastrous' and 'racist'.
UNQUOTE
Is she inciting racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986. Will she be allowed to get away with it because she is a Third World parasite? Of course.

 

Perverse Prosecutors Explained By A Real Lawyer   [ 24 July 2021 ]
Prosecutors in America have huge power to prosecute or not, regardless of the legal merits of a situation. That is why Hunter Biden is not in prison and Joe Biden is in the White House. Being appointed to office is fairly cheap. Two local attorneys might spend as much as $10,000 on advertising then hold the job for years, even decades. But when George Soros decides to spend $500,000 he is likely to win. Of course his candidate will have an agenda & justice be damned. Andrew Branca explains in his video at 11:40 onward. He is commenting on an article by Tom Cotton, a rather sound chap, a senator who served in Afghanistan, with the 101st Airborne Division.

 

Progressive Prosecutors Invite Crime Wave by Tom Cotton  [ 24 July 2021 ]
QUOTE
The Only Good Soros Prosecutor Is a Defeated Soros Prosecutor
In recent years, radical left-wing lawyers, many supported by billionaire George Soros, have won elected office across America. They have become district attorneys and state’s attorneys in many major American cities. These so-called Soros prosecutors, or progressive prosecutors, have betrayed the public trust and made our communities less safe. Instead of fighting crime, they are abetting it.

Soros prosecutors are refusing to charge criminals for shoplifting, vagrancy, and entire categories of misdemeanors. In Chicago, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx allows theft under $1,000 to go unpunished. In Manhattan, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. refuses to enforce laws against prostitution. In Baltimore, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has unilaterally declared the war on drugs “over” and is refusing to criminally charge drug dealers and heroin addicts, in the middle of the worst drug crisis in American history. For a time, Los Angeles DA George Gascón even stopped enforcing laws against disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and making criminal threats.

In cities where they’ve taken office, progressive prosecutors coddle even violent, career criminals, often agreeing to sweetheart deals and routinely circumventing three-strikes laws. The city of San Francisco, where Chesa Boudin is the district attorney, provides a tragic case study in what can happen as a result.

Last year, a career criminal named Troy McAlister faced a well-deserved life sentence as a result of California’s three-strikes law. His long and violent rap sheet included multiple robberies, thefts, and an attempted carjacking. Instead of permanently taking this criminal off the streets, Chesa Boudin cut a deal with McAlister that resulted in his release. McAlister went on to commit a series of crimes leading to three separate arrests. Boudin refused to charge him each time.

Then, on New Year’s Eve last year, McAlister stole a car, robbed a bakery, and then ran over two women crossing the road. One was a 60-year-old homeless woman named Elizabeth Platt. The other was a 27-year-old Japanese immigrant named Hanako Abe. Both women died from their injuries. Hanako, Elizabeth, and many other Americans have lost their lives because Chesa Boudin and Soros prosecutors like him refuse to do their job.

The malfeasance of these legal arsonists has contributed to an unprecedented surge in murder nationwide. Last year, the United States suffered a 25 percent increase in murder, the largest single-year rise in history. The murder rate has now reached the highest level since the 1990s. Soros prosecutors are not simply negligent; they are culpable in this disintegration of public safety. Indeed, their jurisdictions have disproportionally contributed to the violent crime wave.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner systematically reduced his jurisdiction’s prison population by 30 percent through aggressive criminal leniency policies — and that was before COVID protocols resulted in additional reductions. Predictably, murder in the city skyrocketed over 40 percent after Krasner took office, reaching the highest level in three decades. This year, murder in Philadelphia is on pace to rise another 34 percent.

Other Soros prosecutors have delivered similar results. Last year, murder rose 50 percent in Chicago and 38 percent in Los Angeles. In New York City, murder increased 44 percent and shootings soared 97 percent. In 2020, the murder rate in Baltimore was higher than El Salvador’s or Guatemala’s — nations from which citizens can claim asylum purely based on gang violence and murder. In California, America’s richest and most populous state, murder rose 31 percent.

Soros prosecutors also refused to do their job when more than 500 violent riots were breaking out across the nation, thousands of police were being injured, and up to $2 billion in property damage was being inflicted. They irresponsibly unleashed countless rioters and looters, often without charges. As of January, over 90 percent of arrested rioters in Portland, responsible for 100 days of unrest, still had not been charged.

These courtroom extremists have accomplished this destruction by transforming prosecutorial discretion into prosecutorial nullification. District attorneys and state’s attorneys are empowered with the discretion to emphasize or deemphasize the importance and severity of certain criminal prosecutions. They are not, however, empowered with unilateral fiat to abolish laws they don’t like. The legislative branch is solely empowered to repeal laws, not prosecutors.

On the rare occasions when criminals go to trial in jurisdictions with Soros prosecutors, they might as well have two advocates in the room, while the public and the victims have none. These renegade lawyers have turned the criminal justice system into the criminal’s justice system.

It should be clear from this litany of failures that the only good Soros prosecutor is a defeated Soros prosecutor. These radicals have no business holding any public office anywhere in our nation. Every single one of them should be recalled, removed, and replaced. It’s very simple: if you don’t want to prosecute crime, you shouldn’t be a prosecutor.
UNQUOTE
Tom is a lawyer so he knows that facts & truth are weapons. Gascón, a Cuban was a policeman gone bad, helping expand the crime industry for some reason. Boudin, is a Jew whose parents were both terrorists and murderers. He was brought up by two other Enemies Of The People while his parents were in prison.