Jussie Smollett
Out of context: Reply #31
- Started
- Last post
- 34 Responses
- shoes1
The National District Attorneys Association does not seem to agree a hundred percent with the prosecutors explanation (basically painting opposition to her decision as confused and/or ignorant and/or emotional points of view):
"... First, when a chief prosecutor recuses him or herself, the recusal must apply to the entire office, not just the elected or appointed prosecutor. This is consistent with best practices for prosecutors’ offices around the country.
Second, prosecutors should not take advice from politically connected friends of the accused. Each case should be approached with the goal of justice for victims while protecting the rights of the defendant.
Third, when a prosecutor seeks to resolve a case through diversion or some other alternative to prosecution, it should be done so with an acknowledgement of culpability on the part of the defendant. A case with the consequential effects of Mr. Smollett’s should not be resolved without a finding of guilt or innocence.
Fourth, expunging Mr. Smollett’s record at this immediate stage is counter to transparency. Law enforcement will now not be able to acknowledge that Mr. Smollett was indicted and charged with these horrible crimes and the full record of what occurred will be forever hidden from public view.
Finally, we believe strongly that hate crimes should be prosecuted vigorously but the burden of proof should not be artificially increased due to the misguided decisions of others.
NDAA believes strongly in seeking alternatives to incarceration, and in fact, prosecutors around the country offer these alternatives to thousands of defendants every single day. However, as stated above, these alternatives, such as drug treatment, mental health treatment, counseling and/or
community service come with an acknowledgement of responsibility from the defendant. These alternatives also offer the ability for the defendant to preserve their criminal record, again, in exchange for admission of responsibility. However, the case in Chicago illustrates a point that must be discussed in an effort to ensure fairness in our criminal justice system: the rich are treated differently, the politically connected receive favorable treatment, and Lady Justice sometimes peeks under her blindfold to see who stands before her.NDAA rejects these inequities as they are antithetical to our founding principles of justice: that no one is above the law."