I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.
Prosecutors have power to prosecute, not the "right" to prosecute. The evolving history of individual rights is a response to the even longer history of abuses of those powers by little people that get big jobs.
Ortiz and Heymann abused their power and abused Aaron's rights. They should be in jail, not getting a paycheck from taxpayers.
Oh, you're right about natural rights vs. granted powers. And I agree the prosecution went way too far, although Ortiz [edit: not Heymann] must have been shocked at the outcome since she literally got commendations for going way too far before. https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/201...
A stalker can demand to face their accuser, just to harrass that person more. This is exactly the example given in the article: if you're trying to make trouble for someone, dragging them through a lawsuit is effective.
What, so you think stalkers should not have a right to a fair trial? They are using their right, not abusing it. They don't lose that right just because the accuser is not interested in seeing them.
I never said that. But the prosecution (and the judge) have to take into account the effect the trial might be having on the victim, and reduce the defendant's ability to cause more damage. Prosecutorial discretion is all about minimizing the damage done in the course of the defense itself.
