That letter was very well said.Hey, at least someone gets it.
https://www.tetongravity.com/story/...il&utm_term=0_02c03531f8-51d4cfcc93-273070065
That letter was very well said.Hey, at least someone gets it.
https://www.tetongravity.com/story/...il&utm_term=0_02c03531f8-51d4cfcc93-273070065
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.Got to say, I'm a bit surprised we've heard no more on the original Bear Creek case from any legal authorities now three months after the incident. Although we've hashed out many complexities of it here, it doesn't seem like if there was going to be a criminal charge it would take this long. Obviously, civil matters are different.
I am not a lawyer -- but I don't think you typically file charges because of wanting to "send the right message". You file charges because you believe there is sufficient evidence someone acted criminally.
I imagine there is a ton of pressure to file criminal charges if they are able.
Depends on whether the prosecutor subscribes to utilitarianism or retributivist theories of punishment. Deterrence, including deterrence of others, is a part of utilitarianism so it absolutely could be a factor in a decision. (Fresh out of criminal law this semester.)
Guess you've never heard of sovereign immunity. The government has to actually consent to being sued.No need to argue over the rules which are very clear. However the whole idea of prosecuting people because they accessed backcountry from a gate is getting pretty absurd. If it's that dangerous just close the whole forest down or don't do anything.
Prosecuting only those who duck gates could make the nfs liable for the man's death because they chose to ignore an avalanche season which was out of control. Soon the nfs would be responsible for all avalanche deaths in their jurisdiction. They are after all the experts and the responsible party. It's like shoveling two steps on your walkway and leaving the other two icy. Once you take responsibility for the steps it's your obligation to bring them to safe standards. Better to do nothing at all or try to police the whole range.
I suppose the risk with using filing a charge to be a deterrence strategy, is you file a charge but cannot successfully prosecute it. Perhaps risking some precedent being set that makes it harder in the future to bring like cases?
Perhaps the public-awareness deterrence that happens by bringing the charge is worth that risk though. Tricky matrix to figure out.
Also depends on whether prosecutors are elected or appointed, no?
In general we ascribe to punishment = deterrence. It's all conditional though depending on who you are.
Guess you've never heard of sovereign immunity. The government has to actually consent to being sued.