No, they can't and shouldn't. It's stupid. Prosecutors are to follow the law, just as judges are. Personal opinion must be left at the door. I'm against the death penalty by the way.
I'm curious, did she run on a platform of never seeking the death penalty? I can't get by her being a state employee sworn to uphold the laws of the state regardless of my own personal beliefs about the DP. Its great she supports criminal justice reform. So do I. It's quite another to undertake the reform on your own. That's the Legislatures prerogative.
There is no law that dictates when a State Attorney must seek the death penalty. That decision is ALWAYS discretionary.
1. I'm not sure how the death penalty is factoring in here. Are you thinking of Aramis Ayala? 2. The legislature has the power to pass mandatory laws. Absent that, prosecutors have discretion. She is using the discretion the state constitution gives her to pursue reforms.
1. The death penalty factors in because apparently she said she'd never recommend its imposition. 2. I am not a death penalty expert, but it seems it is mandatory under Florida law if a jury and judge deem it an appropriate punishment after hearing all the evidence. This SA has deprived them of that option, have they not? The DA would not have been removed from office had she not announced her policy. She she should have known how DeSantis would react. Now that she's out of office and in private practice, she is free to lobby against at the DP, and I wish her luck. Too may innocent people have been murdered, and others have been so botched as to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's almost unheard of in Europe.
#2 is incorrect. In cases where the death penalty is an option, the State has to elect whether or not they are going to seek that penalty. Unless they affirmatively opt to proceed on that basis, the jury never gets a chance to make a recommendation. A very small percentage of the cases where the death penalty is an option are prosecuted as such. NO law requires it, it is never mandatory.
Again, I can only assume you're thinking of Aramis Ayala. Rick Scott removed death penalty cases from her purview after she announced that she categorically would not seek the death penalty. She was Monique Worrell's predecessor. SA Worrell announced no such policy. State attorney will seek the death penalty in a mass shooting near Orlando
Worrall handled it the right way. I was not familiar with Ayala and knew nothing about her until you mentioned her a second time and I researched her. Scott, who I despise, was correct to take the cases from her after she said she would never exercise her discretion. Was he supposed to just ignore that announcement? I can't imagine a judge announcing that in some types of cases he or she would not exercise discretion, that his or her mind was made up. (I knew a judge or two exactly like that. One even told me in confidence that in 33 years on the bench, he had never granted a motion to suppress or denied a search warrant application.)
I disagree. That's an issue for the electorate to decide. But Scott at least didn't remove her from office. We're not talking about a judge here. Judges are supposed to be impartial. Prosecutors are advocates. They advocate on behalf of the people their circuit. Now, it's a different story where the legislature passed a mandatory law and left them no discretion.
Good point. Does this mean the SA shouldn’t exercise discretion if she campaigned (I don’t know what she said on the stump) as an opponent of the DP and a majority of voters elected her. What if it’s a slim majority? What about the, say, 49% who voted against her? And how can you be sure she won because of her position on the DP? The last thing I’m going to say on the subject, which you and GatorJMDZ have argued well. is that I don’t like an elected or appointed official who serves the public taking the position that he or she will not exercise discretion in certain cases because of his or her personal beliefs. I personally expect them to be as impartial as a judge.
Florida Supreme Court sides with DeSantis, denies suspended state attorney’s bid for reinstatement | WFLA TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Florida Supreme Court justices on Thursday denied a bid from ousted Orlando-area State Attorney Monique Worrell to be reinstated. This comes two weeks after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Worrell, a Democrat who was elected to the 9th Judicial Circuit in 2020, and advocacy groups challenging her suspension by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in August 2023. DeSantis brought forth an executive order accusing Worrell of neglect of duty and incompetence days after two Orlando police officers were shot during a traffic stop. Police said the suspect who fired at the officers and critically injured them was out on bond at the time of the shooting. ... “It is difficult to grasp how Worrell, given the specific challenges and circumstances posed by her diverse circuit in dealing with specific cases, will be able to mount a meaningful defense to allegations of ‘incompetence’ and ‘neglect of duty’ — for basically engaging in similar practices, even if with greater frequency, as other state attorneys throughout our state,” he wrote.
No surprise. It's a group of DeSantis allies who decided the case. All I'll say is what goes around comes around.
If Biden or Hillary or whomever it is has committed a crime, charge them, give them due process, and convict them before a jury of their peers. That's not a threat that scares me. I don't believe politicians are above the law.
Nor do I. This is more of an example of politicians putting the law being below us all, including other politicians.
IMO, this process needs to change. The governor can suspend any constitutional officer without any form of due process? As it exists, this can be abused (and it certainly has been by dear leader).
What exactly do you mean by this? Is that some sort of cryptic threat of retaliation? I thought we weren't allowed to do that. I thought that's a sign of being unprincipled.
