Re: Carrying the Bible an Offense?

At 01:24 PM 2/15/96 -0600, Sten Drescher wrote:
>tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) said:
>
>TCM> There are two further points which need clearing up:
>
>TCM> 1. Private citizens (the atheist in this case) do not file
>TCM> criminal charges. They may swear out a complaint ("I witnessed
>TCM> John Doe carrying a Bible"), but they do not file criminal
>TCM> charges.
>
>	OK, how about `press charges`?  And please, don't try telling
>me that private citizen's don't `press charges`, because one of the
>well reported problems in fighting domestic violence has been the
>battered spouse (almost always the wife) refusing to press charges.

The "pressing charges" question is essentially about evidence. At certain
stages in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution must produce enough
evidence of the right kind (e.g., sworn testimony which reaches the level of
probable cause, for instance) in order for the proceedings to continue.
There are smaller hurdles pretrial (in order to create the prosecution
itself, and to hold the defendant while waiting for trial) and a bigger
hurdle at trial. The sworn testimony of a victim can be strong evidence to
help a prosecutor get over those hurdles. If there is no other evidence, the
prosecution may fail. But prosecutors and investigators who see the
reluctant victim problem coming can sometimes work around it by collecting
other evidence which can be used instead of the victim's testimony. The
victim can also be subpoenaed to testify even if they don't want to. (Of
course, their testimony may not be especially helpful under those
circumstances.) 

Thus, no, the victim does not have veto power over a prosecution, except in
those circumstances where they're fortuitously in possession or control of
the evidence the prosecution needs to prove its case. And that's a matter of
luck and circumstance, not law. 

>TCM> No prosecutor can be "forced" to prosecute, absent approval by a
>TCM> grand jury. (And if a prosecutor doesn't want to indict a ham
>TCM> sandwich, it won't be indicted.)
>
>	OK, how about this.  J Random Atheist, Jr, comes across the
>Bible on the 'net.  J Random Atheist, Sr, finds out, and is appalled,
>and swears out a complaint.  The AUSA refuses to investigate.  Could J
>Random Atheist, Sr, file a lawsuit against the AUSA because he is
>being denied equal treatment under the law?

No. J Random Atheist has no right to expect prosecutors to share his
priorities re enforcement of the laws. His remedy is to elect people with
different prosecutorial priorities.
 
--
"The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho-  | Greg Broiles
lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks | gbroiles@netbox.com
every temptation, every desire, every inhibition." | 
	-- Antonin Artaud		   	   |

Is it not possible in the US jurisdictions to mount private 
prosecutions?  There is a common law right to do so in England.  Indeed, 
before the Crown Prosecution Service was established in 1984 - a fine 
year for bad laws in this country - prosecutions were usually handled by 
the Police, and were in theory private prosecutions.  They are quite 
often started even now by private individuals; and the Attorney General 
has an old statutory authority to take them over or to stop them.  But I 
do remember a number of recent cases of private prosecution for murder.  
None of these, I think, has succeeded:  the reason the CPS refused to get 
involved was because of a lack of good evidence to get cases through the 
committal (grand jury) process.

If this right doesn't exist in American common law, I shall think far 
less of your laws than I have so far.

Sean Gabb
Editor
Free Life.