How is he threatening them? He was telling repeat offenders that the police are going to be keeping a close eye on them. That's their job, isn't it? Or would you rather he tell them that the police will be away on holiday all next week, "but please call our support centre if you plan on committing any crime and we'll get our duty officer to log a ticket"?
they aren't repeat offenders if the evidence used against them was fraudulent. If that evidence was the basis of their conviction they should be free and this prosecutor should be out of a job for such threats.
Look, he only does this because his position is mostly safe for him to abuse. He has already declared all these people guilty, sadly I bet he is more upset the chemist was caught than the possibility people were wrongfully convicted.
Comments
How is he threatening them? He was telling repeat offenders that the police are going to be keeping a close eye on them. That's their job, isn't it? Or would you rather he tell them that the police will be away on holiday all next week, "but please call our support centre if you plan on committing any crime and we'll get our duty officer to log a ticket"?
they aren't repeat offenders if the evidence used against them was fraudulent. If that evidence was the basis of their conviction they should be free and this prosecutor should be out of a job for such threats.
Look, he only does this because his position is mostly safe for him to abuse. He has already declared all these people guilty, sadly I bet he is more upset the chemist was caught than the possibility people were wrongfully convicted.
That's their job isn't it?
No. That's called harassment. They need to focus on actual crimes being committed.