And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison

[Bernardo de La Paz]

192. Know why you oppose it, but not how you'd change it. BTW the lack of "serious" discussion is not you

Grand juries originated as a check and balance against prosecutors who would bring charges with no foundation just because they could.

Grand juries are not "obviously anti-Constitutional" since they are in the Constitution.

There are plenty of reasons to reform or even oppose grand juries in this day and age. The USA is the only jurisdiction that retains them. I support the concept (as far as I understand it, which is imperfectly) because I support checks and balances, but I'm open to suggestions for change. I don't quite understand how other places hold prosecutors in check.

How would you reform grand juries or replace them? How would you place checks and balances on prosecutors in the absence of grand juries?

Would you exclude certain categories of crime from the scrutiny of grand juries? Vandalism? Destruction of property? Arson? Theft? White collar crime? Electoral process abuse? War crime? Government corruption?

Would you excuse anyone who wants to be? If a grand jury is considering indicting a mafia boss for multiple assassinations, would you excuse all the witnesses because they were afraid of testifying?

By the way, the issue about lack of serious discussion was not with regard to you. It was not with regard to reform or support of the grand jury system. It was regarding the posts by 99Forever:

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about understated: " but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of control." A little? What the fuck? I mean really, WHAT THE FUCK?

Aren't you just so very superior. I'm humbled to be in your presence.