I am extremely surprised, there is no obligation to prosecute.
Reading more into the article
"Bronx dropped the case. Then the court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police."
The judge themselves are obstructing justice. Where I am from the prosecutor would have turned and charge the officer on the spot.
Like as a judge how do you even trust the testimony of that officer or any officer anymore if the rate of perjury is half of what the article implies. They are not talking about
"I don't remember correctly." or "Maybe he mistook him for the wrong person." They literally planted evidences and then perjured themselves.
I really don't understand the police organization in the U.S. It incentivizes
An obligation to prosecute crimes seems like a difficult idea to work, but at the least it shouldn't be entirely up to the same prosecutors who rely on the police to do their jobs.
> An obligation to prosecute crimes seems like a difficult idea to work
I think it would be a very disruptive idea at first, because prosecutorial discretion has been so deeply ingrained in our legal system.
I'm not sure sure that it's ultimately a terrible idea though. There are so many laws that we all unknowingly break a few per day. A paranoid person might even suggest it's intentional so as to always have some leverage whenever it's needed.
Without discretion, there's no possibility of leverage against honest citizens. Proposing such expansive laws would be met with much more forceful citizen opposition, and lead to the repeal of the existing ones. And the police wouldn't get the free pass they now enjoy for false testimony.
But the short-term effect of taking away discretion would be a slew of cases everybody knows shouldn't be pursued. And it's not clear to me how it would be enforced.
No doubt some logistical issues would need to be sorted out, like say, grace periods until a law is reviewed. Enforcement via an internal prosecutors office might be possible.
I can't claim to have all the details figured out, but it's not an absurd possibility off the bat. The scope and deliberate impenetrability of the law is a serious problem that I think will only grow worse over time.
Reading more into the article "Bronx dropped the case. Then the court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police."
The judge themselves are obstructing justice. Where I am from the prosecutor would have turned and charge the officer on the spot.
Like as a judge how do you even trust the testimony of that officer or any officer anymore if the rate of perjury is half of what the article implies. They are not talking about "I don't remember correctly." or "Maybe he mistook him for the wrong person." They literally planted evidences and then perjured themselves.
I really don't understand the police organization in the U.S. It incentivizes