Whose Order Is It, Anyway?

March 30, 2010 9:25 AM

Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in a case that has gotten very little media coverage, on whether a private person protected by a restraining order may bring a criminal contempt action to enforce the order. The petitioner pled guilty to beating the respondent, on the condition that he not be prosecuted for a second beating inflicted after she obtained a restraining order. The respondent brought her own criminal action for contempt for the second beating, and the petitioner received more jail time. He asserts, however, that he has a due process right to be prosecuted by the government, rather than a private person.

Usually, criminal actions are brought by the government This case raises the question of whether private persons can be empowered to bring their own criminal actions, as well as practical concerns about how otherwise restraining orders can be enforced.

posted by bearwife (41 comments total)

I know here in Philly it is possible to lodge a private criminal complaint, but I think that just means that the origin of the complaint is a citizen, not a law-enforcement agent. My understanding is that the complaint then enters the judicial system as a regular criminal complaint would. Ideally, that's what would happen in these cases too. I do not understand the reasons behind letting the complainant take the prosecutorial role.
posted by Mister_A at 9:33 AM on March 30, 2010

It's so difficult to discuss Supreme Court cases. Their issues are usually so remote from the events of a particular case. The very interesting question here seems to be about standing. The ugly details of some interpersonal violence really have nothing to do with the issue but make it a mine field to discuss.

There are some very troubling implications that arise from allowing private citizens standing to bring criminal actions. However, if those concerns aren't phrased carefully one risks the appearance of supporting a violent offender or weakening orders of protection.

(Not a lawyer type guy - just fascinated by Supreme Court mechanics)
posted by Babblesort at 9:38 AM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]

Ideally, that's what would happen in these cases too. I do not understand the reasons behind letting the complainant take the prosecutorial role.

Because if the DA (or whoever) takes the prosecutorial role, they can plea bargain something that is to the DA's advantage but not yours. As happened in this case.
posted by DU at 9:39 AM on March 30, 2010 [4 favorites]

Well. That's interesting. Personally, allowing a person to bring a criminal complaint makes sense. After all, a judge is still going to decide the case. But in general, it's hard to see why I should have an opinion either way.
posted by delmoi at 9:42 AM on March 30, 2010

That's an interesting case. The post is a little difficult to read (I didn't get what you meant to start with), so here's a sort of timeline:

Guy beats woman

Woman gets restraining order

Guy beats woman again

Prosecutor goes after guy for assault, and agrees to not prosecute second beating charge if he admitted to the first beating

Guy goes to jail for first beating

Woman uses DC law to bring separate charge on second beating anyway

Guy gets convicted for second beating and gets more jail time

Now this is a legitimately complicated issue, and it's tempting to let the fact that it's domestic violence cloud the issue.

At what point is a prosecutor declining to charge an offense -- and even having an explicit plea bargain deal to not charge one offense in exchange for a confession of another -- binding? This is getting a bit into double-jeopardy gray areas for sure.

Personally, I think the issue goes to the fact that the state so badly mismanages prosecutions that restraining orders are not effective deterrents -- the linked article explicitly states that DA offices are so overworked that they need to allow citizens to bring criminal charges as a safety valve.

posted by chimaera at 9:43 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ideally, that's what would happen in these cases too. I do not understand the reasons behind letting the complainant take the prosecutorial role.

In addition to what DU said, there's always the concern that local prosecutors will not pursue cases against disfavored victims, such as victims of domestic violence. Many of these laws were created to empower victims of crimes to protect themselves in the face of official indifference.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2010 [7 favorites]

bearwife, I commend you on a well-constructed and thought-provoking post.
posted by Mister_A at 9:50 AM on March 30, 2010

There are some very troubling implications that arise from allowing private citizens standing to bring criminal actions.

I could see how allowing for private citizens to being criminal charges on a limited basis with strict repercussions for any blatant abuse of the system would be a very good thing.

By no means am I a lawyer, but it seems like this is in essence an attempt to avoid double prosecution issues. can both the State and a private citizen bring simultaneous charges? If one (state or citizen) dislikes the results of a court decision are they allowed another crack at it? (I think that is what is happening here). What happens if a given individual is charged with a crime that affects multiple people, can the State and each one of those people bring criminal separate charges.

I tend to think one alleged crime = one trial (not counting appeals), is best.
posted by edgeways at 9:53 AM on March 30, 2010

edgeways, it seems to me that, since the second attack was never prosecuted, it wouldn't be double jeopardy, exactly, to prosecute. It violates the spirit of the agreement, as far as the defendant is concerned; but the agreement was cut between the defendant and the prosecution; not the victim. I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on as far as the plea-bargain goes; those things are pretty much handshake deals afaik. So the question then is not so much about the legal stature of the plea agreement as it is about the propriety or constitutionality of allowing "private" prosecutions.
posted by Mister_A at 10:00 AM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]

By no means am I a lawyer, but it seems like this is in essence an attempt to avoid double prosecution issues.

Easy fix: "Sorry, this guy was already charged with that crime."

But there's no double prosecution going on here. There's not even a lot of SINGLE prosecution, which is real problem she's trying to address. (Otherwise, wouldn't she have started a civil suit against either the guy or the prosecutor or the local PD?)
posted by DU at 10:02 AM on March 30, 2010

Woman uses DC law to bring separate charge on second beating anyway

That's not exactly what happened. She got him for contempt of court in violating the restraining order, which, in the judge's discretion, may result in jail time. This can be seen as an end-run around the criminal justice system, allowing private citizens to put people in jail.

It's like in My Cousin Vinny when Joe Pesci continues to piss off Fred Gwynne, and Fred Gwynne puts him in jail overnight, presumably for criminal contempt of court.

Technically, the case is about a guy that is put in jail for violating a restraining order, which is criminal contempt of court, and not for the assault per se. But, for all practical purposes, he is being put in jail for the assault.
posted by jabberjaw at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is very interesting and detailed, and challenging for me to read about without my own (perfectly reasonable) biases in favor of restraining orders and against woman-beating shitstains tainting the whole thing. Nice post.
posted by Damn That Television at 10:06 AM on March 30, 2010

Could a corporation or other organization also be considered a "private person" in this case? If so, could corporations then bring criminal actions against individuals that they find troublesome?
posted by googly at 10:09 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Technically, the case is about a guy that is put in jail for violating a restraining order, which is criminal contempt of court, and not for the assault per se. But, for all practical purposes, he is being put in jail for the assault.

I wouldn't say that this is the case -- what's the point of restraining orders if they're not enforced? Someone (allen.spaulding, in fact, at a meetup) told me that it's actually worse to have restraining orders that aren't enforced than not to have them (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- my memories of that evening are spotty at best). Although it's possible the reason the woman brought the charge is related to the second assault, what I think matters here is that he violated the restraining order. Violating a restraining order should be taken seriously; it's a legal means for people to safeguard themselves and if you don't give it teeth that's an important layer of protection that is completely ignored.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Because if the DA (or whoever) takes the prosecutorial role, they can plea bargain something that is to the DA's advantage but not yours. As happened in this case."

Isn't this more a feature than a bug of the system? By that I mean people who have relationships with the parties of a case are often removed from those cases as a defence against conflicts of interest. And while it may have a positive outcome in this specific case it sure isn't hard to imagine cases where private prosecution of criminal cases could be used as a tool of harassment. Do we want the CoS to have this power?
posted by Mitheral at 10:13 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

If so, could corporations then bring criminal actions against individuals that they find troublesome?

They can already do this with civil suits, the expense of which can be at least as onerous as spending time in jail.
posted by DU at 10:18 AM on March 30, 2010

There's a very interesting consequence to this case. Think about this in terms of the Bush administration's more questionable actions. So far the Obama administration is unwilling to prosecute members of Bush's government for their alleged policies encouraging torture and various potential war crimes. However there are, I'm sure, many many people in this country that are outraged by these actions, here's one. If the Court rules that individual citizens have standing to bring criminal trials to court, what's to stop a citizen from indicting members of Bush's government?
posted by oddman at 10:21 AM on March 30, 2010

Could a corporation or other organization also be considered a "private person" in this case? If so, could corporations then bring criminal actions against individuals that they find troublesome?

This, I think, is probably the 800-lb gorilla in the courtroom, with regards to this case.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:22 AM on March 30, 2010

They can already do this with civil suits, the expense of which can be at least as onerous as spending time in jail.

One can always avail themselves to anti-SLAPP protections. Just make sure you didn't cut any deals that would undermine your protection in that case.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:24 AM on March 30, 2010

And while it may have a positive outcome in this specific case it sure isn't hard to imagine cases where private prosecution of criminal cases could be used as a tool of harassment. Do we want the CoS to have this power?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems this case is much narrower than you're imagining. People aren't going to be able to just start marching down to the courthouse and file prosecutions against other willy-nilly. There was already a restraining order. And in some states, you can petition a judge to decide if the restraining order was violated. That seems reasonable to me. A company or church would have to get a restraining order against you first before they could theoretically use this mechanism to harass you.
posted by kmz at 10:28 AM on March 30, 2010

Also, this case is testing whether to restrict already available avenues for private citizens to bring restraining order grievances. It's not about expanding powers.

If the Court rules that individual citizens have standing to bring criminal trials to court, what's to stop a citizen from indicting members of Bush's government?

That's not what the Court is deciding on at all.
posted by kmz at 10:32 AM on March 30, 2010

In Britain, anyone can begin a private prosecution, but the Crown Prosecution Service has the power to take over any prosecution, and then discontinue it if they feel like it. As I understand it, very few private prosecutions are brought by individuals—most are brought by large enterprises such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, other governmental bodies, or railway train operating companies (yes, the corporate 363-kg gorilla noted above) to deal with specialized crimes that the police and CPS don't want to deal with or can't be bothered to.
posted by grouse at 10:32 AM on March 30, 2010

If prosecutors can't negotiate a plea bargain and get it to stick, then the criminal justice system will seize up and completely fail.
posted by rdr at 10:33 AM on March 30, 2010

rdr, the prosecution did negotiate a plea deal, and it did stick; the defendant was then brought up on a distinct (but related) charge. Can anyone tell me, would the potential penalty have been substantially greater had the defendant been charged with the second assault, which occurred after the protection order was issued, as opposed to the first assault? What, if any, additional sanctions would he have faced for committing an assault against a person with a protective order in place?
posted by Mister_A at 10:39 AM on March 30, 2010

While I think kmz has good point, it only goes half way. It is true that contempt of court can only arise when there is a court order being violated, such as a restraining order. However, I think the real question in the case is whether an indivdual can step in the government's shoes and bring a criminal suit -- contempt -- on its behalf. Generally, the court would have to decide to press charges. Here it appears that it decided not to. so the case may have more general application and may be applicable anytime an indivdiual wants to prosecute a crimanal charge that the goverment has declined.
posted by rtimmel at 10:42 AM on March 30, 2010

I guess I'm confused as to why the supreme court is hearing this. I mean, I get the time line, but ultimately, he was jailed the second time for contempt of court for violating an injunction.

I mean, yeah, she brought the contempt motion, but presumably anyone could have, and the judge still had to decide if the conduct was actually contemptuous.

This has implications beyond domestic violence orders. My own placement order for my son has been enforced by a contempt action brought by me. She kept the boy in violation of the order, and when I sued for contempt, she was sentenced to 45 days in jail ( Jailtime suspended pending the fulfillment of certain obligations by her). Since then she has been abiding by the order more closely.

Without the force of criminal action, what recourse does the court have to enforce civil orders enjoining certain behaviors ? I fear I'd be screwed.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:48 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

If prosecutors can't negotiate a plea bargain and get it to stick, then the criminal justice system will seize up and completely fail.

And if citizens are unable to get satisfaction for crimes committed against them, then vigilantism becomes their only recourse.

And if violating a protective order isn't prosecuted, then protective orders offer no real protection.

Besides, in this case the victim has reason to believe that the system has already failed.
posted by coolguymichael at 10:52 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is a cause celebre for Victims' Rights Groups. Pretty much every point and perceived complication everyone has observed in the comments so far is one that's already been debated at length by proponents/opponents of Victims' Rights Groups. So if any of you really are interested in these issues, I encourage you to Google them.

For those who don't know much about the Victims' Rights movement, it's 90% right-wing folks (of the "lock-'em-all-up"/"justice-system-is-too-lenient" persuasion). It is a movement whose goal is to subvert the line between civil and criminal justice, allowing victims of crimes to go beyond the restitution offered by civil courts and actually extract vengeance by manipulating criminal courts. Women's groups often get pulled in, though, because so many of the crimes the justice system has failed to adequately address are ones that specifically impact women. This is obviously the money case (literally...they will raise bank on it) for Victim's Rights Groups, because everyone is so justly upset at what happened.

If you're young and progressively-minded, have a good head for this stuff and might end up in law, policy, or (god-forbid) a liberal think tank someday, you should consider working toward a system that helps victims like this one in a way that doesn't undermine the noblest aspects of due process and criminal procedure.
posted by aswego at 11:01 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is a fascinating issue.

grouse brings up an important point: private citizens bringing criminal complaints isn't exactly new. Professional, state-sponsored prosecutions have only been around for a century or two. Before that, all criminal charges were brought by victims or their families, and there's absolutely nothing in legal history to suggest that they can't be. Indeed, there's good reason to think that leaving prosecutions up to the state is begging for an under-funded and over-worked prosecutorial office to abandon those cases which aren't very serious or aren't obvious winners, not to mention the possibilities of political corruption and favoritism.

Contra the OP, the question is thus not whether individuals can be "empowered" to bring criminal actions, but whether the Constitution actually prevents them from doing so as a violation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The issue is made even more complicated because while the courts are the forum in which the prosecution is taking place, the action as such is being brought by a private citizens, who are largely immune from constitutional strictures.

This is why the Court is hearing this case: to determine whether current constitutional jurisprudence leaves any room for private prosecutions, regardless of whether or not the current custom involves them or not. If the Court ruled that this sort of thing is no longer permissable, this would essentially mean that the state is the only one permitted to enforce those rights. That's a pretty huge step, and not one anyone one the Court is going to take lightly.

On the other hand, most crimes today, while not truly "victimless," have far more to do with violating statutes and regulations than doing actual, concrete harm to another. This sort of thing was impossible without full-time professional prosecutors, as no one else would be bothered to bring actions against "wrongdoing" which didn't hurt them in some way. Maybe we don't want private citizens to bring actions based on these things. But how to draw a clear line there, particularly on these facts, is problematic.

What strikes me as wrong about this case is that the woman, while statutorily unable to bring a prosecution for her beating may be able to bring a prosecution for the guy violating a court order. That's just bass sackwards, and obviously not the result she wanted. She wants the guy nailed for the malum in se of the assault, not the malum prohibitum of violating the restraining order.
posted by valkyryn at 11:06 AM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm reluctant to wade too far into the fray here, but the actual legal question involved is actually quite subtle. The appellant does not seek to prevent private prosecution, but rather to require that they be brought in the name of the state rather than the individual. As any good Law & Order watcher knows, criminal cases are normally styled as US v defendant or State of New York v defendant. Interestingly, the US Solicitor General substantially agrees in their brief, recognizing that the compelling interest in the case is still the people's. They argue that it doesn't help the appellant because his plea agreement was only binding on the US Attorney's office and although he is entitled to be charged by the people, he isn't entitled to enforce the plea agreement.

It has a number of balancing factors to consider, since many of the defendant's due process rights are grounded in the idea of a state prosecution. Another obscure fact in the case history is that the actual charges were drafted by the DC Attorney General's Office for Watson. So although she technically filed the charges as an individual, she had a lot of support from the state. Its a pretty tricky case, where some rulings from the Supremes could have a lot of unintended consequences. However, in some of these situations, they end up crafting such a narrow decision that it doesn't really change anything at all. This could be one of those.
posted by Lame_username at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2010

In Britain, anyone can begin a private prosecution, but the Crown Prosecution Service has the power to take over any prosecution, and then discontinue it if they feel like it. As I understand it, very few private prosecutions are brought by individuals—most are brought by large enterprises such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

See this 2006 article from Solicitors Journal on this point. Lord Bingham says:

“A crime is an offence against the good order of the state. It is for the state by its appropriate agencies to investigate alleged crimes and decide whether offenders should be prosecuted. In times past, with no public prosecution service and ill-organised means of enforcing the law, the prosecution of offenders necessarily depended on the involvement of private individuals, but that is no longer so. The surviving right of private prosecution is of questionable value, and can be exercised in a way damaging to the public interest.”

Which is the point being raised upthread - I had no idea that private criminal prosecutions were so problematic in the States.

On the point about the RSPCA, while it regularly undertakes private prosecutions, this is highly controversial as this (1;2) exchange of letters in the Times by m'learned friends evidences. See also impersonation of coppers, etc.
posted by dmt at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2010

I'm a family law attorney (but not in D.C.). This is an interesting case to me for several reasons. Most states have "civil contempt" and "criminal contempt" statutes, as well as contempt sanctions that are specifically directed to family law issues (non/late-payment of child support, violations of child custody/visitation orders, etc...). Additionally, most states also have "civil domestic abuse" protection statutes (I love the irony in that term), as well as criminal statutes against domestic abuse. So, for example in my state, a person can obtain a civil protection order telling his/her abuser to stay- away. A subsequent violation of that order is punishable by a jail sentence. Additionally, domestic abuse is also punishable as a criminal offense by the county/state prosecutor. There's an important distinction between the two, though. In the "civil protection order" example, it is the subsequent violation that's being punished, not the original abuse that caused the victim to obtain the order. In the "criminal" protection statute, what generally happens is the county/state prosecutes the abuser for the original abuse AND also issues a stay-away order of protection. This protective order is issued in the criminal case, not the civil case, and violations of which cannot be prosecuted by private individuals.

Further complicating this particular Supreme Court case is that it comes out of the District of Columbia, which means that principles of federal law are implicated because, as the petitioner's brief points out, the original D.C. court that heard this is a "congressionally" created court - that would not hold true in any other state. So it is possible that this case may be limited in broader significance because of the unique legal position of the District of Columbia.

Finally, the various amici address the issue of non-payment of child support (something which was not at all at issue in the underlying factual case scenario. Non-payment of child support is often punished as a "civil" contempt that can carry a jail sentence with it if found guilty. The similarity to the physical abuse is that civil contempt for non-payment of child support can also be brought by the support recipient against the support payor. This is important because it presents a dilemma for the Supreme Court in terms of how they address this case. If they rule broadly, they risk shutting down the traditional method of divorce/custody/support order enforcement nationwide - via civil contempts. If they rule too narrowly, they end up creating a situation where a victim of true physical abuse has to effectively stand in line at the prosecuting attorneys office to get legal relief.

So you can see why this is an interesting case from a purely legal perspective. If the court rules broadly, the impact will be felt at the state court level. If they rule narrowly, they may be able to craft something that's only applicable to D.C. But again, it's the Supreme Court so all bets are off.
posted by webhund at 11:38 AM on March 30, 2010

Mister_A : rdr, the prosecution did negotiate a plea deal, and it did stick; the defendant was then brought up on a distinct (but related) charge.

Right - But what happens if you effectively take away the DA's power to bargain?

I don't have a link handy, but have read that something like 80% of successful prosecutions go smoothly only because the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Take that power away, and you'll end up seeing more guilty people walking free on technicalities.


coolguymichael : And if citizens are unable to get satisfaction for crimes committed against them, then vigilantism becomes their only recourse.

I know I'll catch some flack for saying this, but for domestic issues, sometimes vigilantism does work better - Particularly when the victim refuses to cooperate because "he really luuuurves me, he can't help it!". When your sister's BF/husband beats her up, you round up a few friends, beat him senseless, beat some sense back into him, and then run him out of town. Problem solved in a way modern courts just lack the subtlety to handle.

And if violating a protective order isn't prosecuted, then protective orders offer no real protection.

The sooner people learn that, the better.

A protective order amounts to trying to use a sheet of paper when you need a bulletproof vest. As long as no one shoots at you, it works great. As soon as someone kidnaps/tortures/rapes/kills you, oh boy, they can get an extra few years tacked on to "life without parole".
posted by pla at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2010

Problem solved in a way modern courts just lack the subtlety to handle.

"Subtlety." Whatever other merits your suggestion may posses or lack, you definitely need to re-examine your conception of this word.

A protective order amounts to trying to use a sheet of paper

That's cute, and I suppose you're right that it won't protect you in and of itself in the end -- but then again, neither will a bulletproof vest or a posse of angry friends, necessarily.

But I think you're being dismissive about "paper." Chances are pretty good you work for paper (or not even paper, more likely simply the flipping of bits in a networked computer system), which isn't, of court, just paper but a complex chain of social interactions represented by an abstraction printed on paper. The protective order isn't that different; it's one way of signaling to somebody that society disapproves of your actions and the machinery of society is being oriented against you. An abusive lunkhead might not process it consciously in that way, and might even decide he doesn't care or think he can beat the system, but he'll understand it's not just a piece of paper on a gut level. It's the civil/formal equivalent of that posse of friends you were talking about staging a more mild intervention, where instead of beating the hell out of the lunkhead, they let him know they're ready to if anything happens again. That's effective enough sometimes, particularly if the guy's a coward as some abusers are.

And the civil process has an advantage that the vigilante process doesn't. Don't know if you've looked back much, but modern society, even with its problems, is considerably less violent than society even 150 years ago, much less centuries or millenia further back. There's this process People hand over authority to employ it except in grave situations to civil authorities and that convention isn't just a legal one, it becomes a social one. Flout it and you turn back the clock towards a more violent and tribal society. And I don't know if you've noticed, but the tongues of that particular fire are lapping a little more enthusiastically than usual at edges lately. Hopefully the center can hold. If not, your apparent enthusiasm for vigilanteism will serve you well.
posted by namespan at 1:19 PM on March 30, 2010 [4 favorites]

DU: Because if the DA (or whoever) takes the prosecutorial role, they can plea bargain something that is to the DA's advantage but not yours. As happened in this case.

That's their job. The DA represents the state, not the victim.

coolguymichael: And if citizens are unable to get satisfaction for crimes committed against them, then vigilantism becomes their only recourse.

Satisfaction is something that you don't get out of a criminal case. You might see justice applied, but that's only a small part of making yourself whole again if you have the misfortune of being the victim of a serious crime.
posted by peeedro at 1:42 PM on March 30, 2010

There are some very troubling implications that arise from allowing private citizens standing to bring criminal actions.

What? Exposure to countersuit if they are wrong?

They in theory have 1st hand knowledge of the crime, so the swearing the complaint bar is met.

Would you rather have citizens be able to directly go to Grand Juries and then repeat the folly of corrupt officials being called to task?

(codification of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946 tended to end direct citizen interaction with Grand Juries)
posted by rough ashlar at 2:27 PM on March 30, 2010

"Before that, all criminal charges were brought by victims or their families, and there's absolutely nothing in legal history to suggest that they can't be. Indeed, there's good reason to think that leaving prosecutions up to the state is begging for an under-funded and over-worked prosecutorial office to abandon those cases which aren't very serious or aren't obvious winners, not to mention the possibilities of political corruption and favoritism."

Seems like the biggest problem with private criminal prosecution would be the, um, unevenness of the resulting "justice". Be accused of killing some rich guy's dog and be hounded for life; kill some family-less homeless guy and go scot free.
posted by Mitheral at 4:16 PM on March 30, 2010

Mitheral, I'd be more worried about that if I thought that "justice" was removely "even" under the current system. Get caught with a few grams of pot and spend a few years in jail, your career prospects ruined forever; beat the ever-living shit out of your wife--or engaged in obviously predatory lending practices--and never even get charged. Yeah, that's what I signed up for.

I'm not arguing that private prosecutions are obviously superior to public prosecutions but that private prosecutions bring a granularity and personality to prosecutions which state-operated prosecutorial offices can't match. This can be a bad thing, sure, but it can also be a good thing.
posted by valkyryn at 6:39 PM on March 30, 2010

Guy beats woman
Woman gets restraining order
Guy beats woman again
Prosecutor goes after guy for assault, and agrees to not prosecute second beating charge if he admitted to the first beating
Guy goes to jail for first beating
Woman uses DC law to bring separate charge on second beating anyway
Guy gets convicted for second beating and gets more jail time


Justice served. Almost. Personally, I think he's owed two beatings.

Actually, that's a lie.

I think he's owed *four*
posted by eriko at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2010

Seems like the biggest problem with private criminal prosecution would be the, um, unevenness of the resulting "justice". Be accused of killing some rich guy's dog and be hounded for life; kill some family-less homeless guy and go scot free.

Yea as opposed to the present system where the above never happens.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:00 AM on March 31, 2010

Right - But what happens if you effectively take away the DA's power to bargain?

Then the DA might actually have to work for a living
posted by rough ashlar at 10:40 AM on March 31, 2010