|
By the way, Shotsie, that was a great question or two. The answer might surprise some people and that's exactly the mark of a great question. We grow only from those that surprise us.
As to whether Clinton's bulk prosecutions were more successful or Bush's more selective prosecutions, I don't know. I know both had some convictions and both had some thrown out, but I don't know the ratios. Before we look that up, it might be interesting to consider what it will mean. I can imagine two ways of looking at it:
a) The president with the highest success rate locked up the most people.
b) The president with the LOWEST success rate went after people who weren't actually guilty, according to the courts.
If president Jones prosecuted a guy for six years, through three appeals, and the courts kept saying what the guy did was protected under the first amendment, is that president bad for going after innocent people, or good for failing to succeed in his attempts to lock up pornographers?
Does the success rate of the obscenity prosecutions mean anything, or is the fact that Clinton tried to lock up twice as many as Bush tried to the most telling number?
__________________
For historical display only. This information is not current:
support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627
Strongbox - The next generation in site security
Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control
Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids
|