In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.
There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.
Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.
In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.
There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.
Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.