Based Ron DeSantis Removes Woke Florida Prosecutor

[MasterJedi]

Another sickening move supported by the groomer churches.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

[Person Man]

Is this an elected position?

It is, yes, but Florida's Constitution gives the Governor rather broad powers to remove local officials for cause.

Legal but Questionable then.

[Donerail]

I don't agree with Fuzzy on almost anything related to Ron DeSantis or his governing style, but as someone who believes in a firm state-government distinction I'm not going to shed many tears for a prosecutor fired in these circumstances either.

Prosecutors in this country have always—notwithstanding any "state-government distinction"—been granted broad latitude to decide when and how to punish violations of the law. Judges rarely not review decisions to prosecute or not prosecute, and it is extraordinarily unusual for a statute to require prosecution. The prosecutor is the one in the best position to judge the facts of a case and whether a prosecution will be successful, as well as setting his office's enforcement priorities and allocating the limited resources at his disposal.

In Florida, that discretion is entrusted to the state's attorney. The people of Hillsborough County have selected an individual to serve as state's attorney, because they trust him to use his discretion and judgment to determine when a particular set of circumstances requires a decision to prosecute. The approach to that discretion is the central issue in these elections — the entire reason they are elected is to ensure that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute align with community priorities. By all accounts, he enjoys broad popular support (he received roughly 125,000 more votes than DeSantis in the last election). If the people disagree with his priorities, they can vote him out.

At any rate, it is obvious that Warren is not actually being removed for a decision on when to enforce the law. The two examples DeSantis cited were Warren's belief that sex changes for minors should not be illegal and a pledge not to enforce the state's new abortion ban. The former is not illegal in Florida, even though the governor would like it to be, while the latter law was enacted in April and stayed as unconstitutional in July. Warren has not made any non-prosecution decisions — he has no power to prosecute activities that are not illegal and has no power to enforce an unconstitutional law (and, at any rate, has not encountered any cases of alleged violations).

Warren is being removed not because of his prosecution decisions but because the Republicans want to ensure that elections are slanted in their favor going forward. The first time the governor exercised this power was to remove a Secretary of Elections in Palm Beach County—he replaced her with a guy who now leads his "Office of Election Crimes"—and he has suggested he plans to use it to remove SoEs who offer drop boxes for mail-in ballots. Republicans have made clear that an essential part of their strategy in 2024 will be having "a network of party-friendly district attorneys who could intervene to block vote counts at certain precincts." What DeSantis is doing here is relying on a slim pretext to make sure the DA in a large, Democratic-leaning county is someone who will work for him.

[SteveRogers]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

No , local jurisdictions from what I can tell do not have a state equivalent of the 10th amendment so they must follow the laws passed by the state legislature.

[SteveRogers]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

No , local jurisdictions from what I can tell do not have a state equivalent of the 10th amendment so they must follow the laws passed by the state legislature.

What happens if the people of said county keep electing State’s Attorneys who disagree with the governor on criminal justice policy and priorities?

[Del Tachi]

In Florida, that discretion is entrusted to the state's attorney. The people of Hillsborough County have selected an individual to serve as state's attorney, because they trust him to use his discretion and judgment to determine when a particular set of circumstances requires a decision to prosecute. The approach to that discretion is the central issue in these elections — the entire reason they are elected is to ensure that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute align with community priorities. By all accounts, he enjoys broad popular support (he received roughly 125,000 more votes than DeSantis in the last election). If the people disagree with his priorities, they can vote him out.

Yup, my position is pretty much this x100.

Elected prosecutors should not have to justify their use of prosecutorial discretion to anyone except the voters.  Prosecutors must be allowed to act independently of government influence or interference. 

[Blair]

Only in America is a public prosecutor's office considered an appropriate bully pulpit from which to crusade against unjust laws in the first place. People with these instincts in other countries instead become "RUMPOLE ONLY DEFENDS"-style career defense counsel or else try to get elected to legislative, not executive, office themselves so that they can change the laws they don't like rather than selectively enforce or not enforce them. I don't agree with Fuzzy on almost anything related to Ron DeSantis or his governing style, but as someone who believes in a firm state-government distinction I'm not going to shed many tears for a prosecutor fired in these circumstances either.

Coming from our legal system I don't know what terrifies me more; electing judges, electing prosecutors or having juries on libel case.

[DrScholl]

I agree with Benjamin Frank's point about resources. This is a completely political move by DeSantis to unjustly strip powers from an elected official elected in a Democratic leaning district.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only in America is a public prosecutor's office considered an appropriate bully pulpit from which to crusade against unjust laws in the first place. People with these instincts in other countries instead become "RUMPOLE ONLY DEFENDS"-style career defense counsel or else try to get elected to legislative, not executive, office themselves so that they can change the laws they don't like rather than selectively enforce or not enforce them. I don't agree with Fuzzy on almost anything related to Ron DeSantis or his governing style, but as someone who believes in a firm state-government distinction I'm not going to shed many tears for a prosecutor fired in these circumstances either.

Coming from our legal system I don't know what terrifies me more; electing judges, electing prosecutors or having juries on libel case.

I'm not sure the English legal system has much room to maneuver when it comes to criticizing American defamation law, but that's by the by.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

They could, yes.  What would the remedy be to victims if a prosecutor refused to prosecute illegal rioters in Tampa, as Warren refused to do?  

BLM and Antifa rioters damaged property and caused injuries, inflicting monetary damages, yet Warren refused to prosecute perpetrators.  Whatever the scope of these damages andinjuries, they WERE damages and injuries that inflicted a cost to the individuals whose property was damaged and whose person was injured.  Now these are CRIMES where the entire State of Florida is the plaintiff, but in criminal law there is an identified victim, a party where probably cause has been established that their life, liberty, or property has been illegally taken from them by a specific party or parties.  Do crime victims not have the right to see justice under the law be rendered against those who harmed them criminally?  Moreover, do individual citizens have the right to be secure in the knowledge that THEIR local prosecutor will prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against THEM in order that justice may be rendered?

I should say here that a civil monetary payout to victims for damages isn't enough.  The Prosecutor's office in whichever jurisdiction exists not only to PUNISH criminals in the name of rendering justice; it exists to DETER crime by ensuring that people know that crime will not go unpunished.  Did Mr. Warren not grievously fail the citizenry of Hillsborough County, FL in that manner?

So I go back to my earlier question:  What would be the remedy to people whose robber/thief etc went unprosecuted and unpunished by Mr. Warren?

[SteveRogers]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

They could, yes.  What would the remedy be to victims if a prosecutor refused to prosecute illegal rioters in Tampa, as Warren refused to do?  

BLM and Antifa rioters damaged property and caused injuries, inflicting monetary damages, yet Warren refused to prosecute perpetrators.  Whatever the scope of these damages andinjuries, they WERE damages and injuries that inflicted a cost to the individuals whose property was damaged and whose person was injured.  Now these are CRIMES where the entire State of Florida is the plaintiff, but in criminal law there is an identified victim, a party where probably cause has been established that their life, liberty, or property has been illegally taken from them by a specific party or parties.  Do crime victims not have the right to see justice under the law be rendered against those who harmed them criminally?  Moreover, do individual citizens have the right to be secure in the knowledge that THEIR local prosecutor will prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against THEM in order that justice may be rendered?

I should say here that a civil monetary payout to victims for damages isn't enough.  The Prosecutor's office in whichever jurisdiction exists not only to PUNISH criminals in the name of rendering justice; it exists to DETER crime by ensuring that people know that crime will not go unpunished.  Did Mr. Warren not grievously fail the citizenry of Hillsborough County, FL in that manner?

So I go back to my earlier question:  What would be the remedy to people whose robber/thief etc went unprosecuted and unpunished by Mr. Warren?

If the citizens feel that their DA is soft on crime, they can vote him out of office. Happens all the time all over the country. There was an election after all of the events that you’re talking about. Warren was re-elected. This removal has nothing to do with any of that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Isn't there a difference between regular prosecutorial discretion and announcing you aren't going to prosecute a law at all?  (Not to say the latter might not be justified in some cases.)

[Former President tack50]

In Florida, that discretion is entrusted to the state's attorney. The people of Hillsborough County have selected an individual to serve as state's attorney, because they trust him to use his discretion and judgment to determine when a particular set of circumstances requires a decision to prosecute. The approach to that discretion is the central issue in these elections — the entire reason they are elected is to ensure that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute align with community priorities. By all accounts, he enjoys broad popular support (he received roughly 125,000 more votes than DeSantis in the last election). If the people disagree with his priorities, they can vote him out.

Yup, my position is pretty much this x100.

Elected prosecutors should not have to justify their use of prosecutorial discretion to anyone except the voters.  Prosecutors must be allowed to act independently of government influence or interference. 

While I agree with this, I will also say that:

A) Prosecutors should not be elected in the first place

B) Even as someone skeptical to an extent of the concept that the justice system has to be wholly separated from the executive and legislative; politicizing justice is never good

[Donerail]

Do crime victims not have the right to see justice under the law be rendered against those who harmed them criminally?  Moreover, do individual citizens have the right to be secure in the knowledge that THEIR local prosecutor will prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against THEM in order that justice may be rendered?

No, they do not. Individual recompense is handled through the civil courts; crime victims do not have a right to direct the prosecution of specific offenders. If the prosecutor wants to prosecute or doesn't want to prosecute, that's their decision. This is because the prosecutor is the only one in a position to judge whether the general interests of the community, not just the desires of the individual victims, justifies a prosecution.

For example, the prosecution might agree to a plea bargain that gives a lower sentence to one offender when he agrees to testify against others. This means the victims of the first offender do not get "justice" — the person who harmed them is not punished, or punished softly. But it serves the broader community by allowing the prosecutor to successfully go after other, more serious offenders. This cuts both ways — prosecutors not infrequently will seek the death penalty over the opposition of crime victims who oppose it because of the general societal interest in deterrence. We elect prosecutors specifically to ensure their instincts on the exercise of this discretion reflect those of the broader community.

Isn't there a difference between regular prosecutorial discretion and announcing you aren't going to prosecute a law at all?  (Not to say the latter might not be justified in some cases.)

Varies based on state law, some draw a distinction and some don't. The Florida Supreme Court doesn't seem to think there's a categorical non-enforcement power, but that's contested. The remedy in most states would just be to have the state AG's office handle the prosecutions.

[ProudModerate2]

... BLM and Antifa rioters damaged property and caused injuries ...

I'm starting to think he does this intentionally, just to get attention from Atlas.
(Raises hand for falling for it.)

[All Along The Watchtower]

This thread reminds of how complicated and problematic in practice the “independence of the Justice Department” is, along with the debate on how political/politicized the judiciary is and the implications for their overall legitimacy. In regards to the former, you saw a lot of this during the Trump Presidency, going both ways frankly—federal prosecutors and DOJ officials becoming proud #Resistance heroes and media darlings, while the likes of Bill Barr wearing their right-wing politics on their sleeves and, in the final months, John Eastman and a few others (including former federal prosecutor and prominent co-conspirator in the events that led to both Trump impeachments Rudolph Giuliani) trying to find The One Weird Trick to keep a President in office in spite of an electoral defeat.

Disturbing stuff all around.

[MiddleRoad]

Who knew the hill the left would be craven to die on would be Sex changes for children

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion. 

This is an excellent point and I'm happy to adjust my view of this kind of situation because of it, so thanks. I suppose the issue is more that American prosecutors behave like—and are—political figures in general than that they exercise this discretion for their own ideological or moral reasons in particular (which I'm sure police boards etc. do in Canada as well).

The discretion does not come from monetary concerns.  The discretion comes from the prosecutor's decision to formally charge a defendant with an information.

The state shall file formal charges on defendants in custody by information, or indictment, or in the case of alleged misdemeanors by whatever documents constitute a formal charge, within 30 days from the date on which defendants are arrested or from the date of the service of capiases upon them. If the defendants remain uncharged, the court on the 30th day and with notice to the state shall:.

(1) Order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 33rd day unless the state files formal charges by that date; or
(2) If good cause is shown by the state, order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 40th day unless the state files formal charges by that date.
In no event shall any defendants remain in custody beyond 40 days unless they have been formally charged with a crime.

FL. R. Crim. P. 3.134

Renumbered by 573 So.2d 826, effective 4/1/1991.

State Attorney discretion is not absolute.  A State Attorney can't just not file a charge against a defendant because they are philosophically opposed to a statute if a defendant has been arrested for the charge and the State Attorney determines that there is probably cause to go forth with a prosecution.  When an Information is filed by a State Attorney charging a person with a crime, they are not only stating that they have met the standard for Probable Cause to show that (A) a crime was committed and (B) the person charged committed the crime; they are also saying that their Office will be able, at Trial, to prove the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Yes, things can happen to make that assessment change over time, but a State Attorney does not have the discretion to not file the appropriate charge if evidence shows that a crime was committed and probable cause shows that the accused did the crime.

When a State Attorney does not file charges against a criminal, that is non-feasance.  It's deliberately not doing the job you were elected to.  If people here were honest with themselves, they would have been fully supportive if the Governor of Kentucky removed Kim Davis from office because she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex people.  "Discretion" does not mean the utter refusal to bring criminal charges simply because you disagree with the law in question.

[DrScholl]

Who knew the hill the left would be craven to die on would be Sex changes for children

If anyone is dying on a hill it is Republicans. See the abortion initiative in Kansas last week. The mainstream isn't buying exaggerations and lies from people like you.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ultimately if leftists/liberals want to see real change, they should change the law. And to do that, they need to win elections--in this case, elections in Florida.

The drafting and execution of the law is---or should be---determined by politics, but not in the sense of the personal preferences of individual officials. It is determined by politics in the broader, democratic sense of the people's elected representatives in the legislature and executive branch (with the judiciary being more complicated, yes, but I'm parking that debate for the purposes of this discussion). As much as I vehemently disagree with the laws in Florida, and maintain that DeSantis and Republican politicians in general are doing grievous harm to already marginalized communities, I have to agree with Fuzzy in that it's not for prosecutors or other executive branch officials to outright refuse to faithfully execute the laws.

Elect people who can repeal the laws you don't like and enact the legalization you want to see enacted. That's a more effective and sustainable strategy anyway than relying on some government official(s) who in the short term may or may not defy a few of the laws and policies currently on the books but can't possibly be a substitute for political change coming from the voters.

[Boobs]

Call me when “based” Round DeSantis sees his own feet. He’s in no shape to fix Florida or the country.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Ultimately if leftists/liberals want to see real change, they should change the law. And to do that, they need to win elections--in this case, elections in Florida.

The drafting and execution of the law is---or should be---determined by politics, but not in the sense of the personal preferences of individual officials. It is determined by politics in the broader, democratic sense of the people's elected representatives in the legislature and executive branch (with the judiciary being more complicated, yes, but I'm parking that debate for the purposes of this discussion). As much as I vehemently disagree with the laws in Florida, and maintain that DeSantis and Republican politicians in general are doing grievous harm to already marginalized communities, I have to agree with Fuzzy in that it's not for prosecutors or other executive branch officials to outright refuse to faithfully execute the laws.

Elect people who can repeal the laws you don't like and enact the legalization you want to see enacted. That's a more effective and sustainable strategy anyway than relying on some government official(s) who in the short term may or may not defy a few of the laws and policies currently on the books but can't possibly be a substitute for political change coming from the voters.

In a perfect world, yes.  But our system of state government ought to have mechanisms to at least suspend officials who commit nonfeasance or malfeasance of office.

Warren, by the way, is "suspended".  He does have recourse to this.

[BlueSwan]

Eh…lots of laws are mostly symbolic and aren’t really being enforced.