The trouble with this is the state of the law and the power dynamics in play. It's almost impossible to prove that charges were "absurdly trumped up" because there are so many outrageously broad felonies on the books and prosecutors are clever enough to choose ones that at least vaguely resemble what the defendants were actually doing. Meanwhile you have to protect prosecutors who attempt to prosecute politically powerful defendants from the defendants using their political power to retaliate against the prosecutor. Which means that prosecutors have a lot of discretion and bar associations, while theoretically capable of taking action, generally won't.
At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors?
The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
Is the absurdity the charge or the statute though? Why is there a law on the books that allows them to be charged for glitter?
The answer is because an over-reactive police force encountering an "unknown substance" may end up spending significant resources shutting down the area and checking it for chemical and biological weapons, and nobody wants them to do that but neither does anybody want to be seen blaming the police for being overly cautious, so the blame is assigned to anyone giving them an excuse to do it. And then the police and prosecutors are given another weapon to use against harmless protestors that amounts yet again to felony causing trouble for the establishment.
The problem is the system rather than the people. "Punish the prosecutors" is trying to cure the disease with more of the disease.
Comments
The trouble with this is the state of the law and the power dynamics in play. It's almost impossible to prove that charges were "absurdly trumped up" because there are so many outrageously broad felonies on the books and prosecutors are clever enough to choose ones that at least vaguely resemble what the defendants were actually doing. Meanwhile you have to protect prosecutors who attempt to prosecute politically powerful defendants from the defendants using their political power to retaliate against the prosecutor. Which means that prosecutors have a lot of discretion and bar associations, while theoretically capable of taking action, generally won't.
At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors?
The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
Any sort of Terrorism charges for glitter or a banner protest are clearly absurd.
Is the absurdity the charge or the statute though? Why is there a law on the books that allows them to be charged for glitter?
The answer is because an over-reactive police force encountering an "unknown substance" may end up spending significant resources shutting down the area and checking it for chemical and biological weapons, and nobody wants them to do that but neither does anybody want to be seen blaming the police for being overly cautious, so the blame is assigned to anyone giving them an excuse to do it. And then the police and prosecutors are given another weapon to use against harmless protestors that amounts yet again to felony causing trouble for the establishment.
The problem is the system rather than the people. "Punish the prosecutors" is trying to cure the disease with more of the disease.