Wow, in response to a court order, the DOJ's cost-benefit analysis of arresting protesters at the Capitol avoided the use of...numbers!!! The arrests are being made based on rightwing authoritarian “principles,” like silencing their opposition and discouraging dissent. Leaders lead, they don’t need to listen.
In what is a shockingly irresponsible display of partisanship, AG J.B. Van Hollen didn't bother to fulfill a judge’s simple request:
WEAU: Dane County Circuit Judge Peter Anderson asked DOJ in January to provide a cost-benefit analysis of pursuing so many citations.
(The DOJ) didn't offer any numerical data, saying instead that legislators concluded the benefit of access rules that protect Capitol visitors outweighs enforcement costs and prosecutors have great discretion on what cases to pursue.
They also avoided outrage over all that wasted taxpayer money.
No word yet on the judges reaction.
I recall this as a judicial order, not a request. A contempt citation should follow, ought to follow, the fuck-you from the DOA and DoJ.ReplyDelete
Here's the way Steven Elbow (February 5, 2014; the Capital Times) reported the request:
"People who have the authority to direct resources and prosecution, who have the authority to decide what cases the state's going to be involved in, I think, have some obligation to exercise that authority using good judgment and some consideration of what the resource costs and benefits are," said Circuit Court Judge Peter Anderson during a hearing Friday for six people who were arrested and issued fines during last summer's crackdown against protesters. ...
Anderson is scheduled to make an oral ruling on the cases May 1, but he wants the cost-benefit analysis done 30 days before that.
Since the crackdown is over and nobody's breaking the rules, Anderson asked what "the state's purpose is in pursuing 400 forfeiture cases regarding events that occurred last summer under a legal system that's no longer in place and where the arrests aren't continuing."
Anderson listed the kinds of costs he wanted included to weigh against whatever benefits the state might see in pursuing the cases.
"For example, you've got all these defendants, and they have time, they have lawyers. That's a cost," he said. "You've got a bailiff, sometimes you've got more than one bailiff. We've got the court staff. We've got two assistant attorney generals. We have witnesses. All of those are significant costs. And if we're doing it 400 times - to accomplish what? That's what I'd like you to be able to apprise me of."
Send them to JAIL! That's what would happen to us if we tried this type of BS.ReplyDelete
I'm sick and tired of judges giving these pricks every benefit of the doubt. It's clear all they will respond to are heavy fines and jail time. So DO IT, or else us plebes will have to carry out justice if our own