The Jussie Smollett case has revealed what happens when a district attorney refuses to prosecute a criminal complaint and the police do not support this decision. This is valuable information for people like us who object to certain laws and seek a way to nullify them reliably.

Background

To summarize, Kim Foxx, a state’s attorney in Illinois, dropped charges on Jussie Smollett for suspect reasons. These reasons may have been racial solidarity or political in nature, but nonetheless, they were reasons that didn’t fall within the scope of prosecutorial discretion, according to her peers. The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association denounced Kim Foxx for this, and the Cook County police chiefs denounced Kim Foxx as well. The case is still developing.

This is a demonstration of the limitations of having only a friendly district attorney and nothing else.

Judicial Landscape

I’m no lawyer, but my understanding of the judicial system is as follows: things typically start with law enforcement recommending charges against a party, prosecutors may file charges or not depending on whether they feel the evidence is strong enough, it then gets its day in court, and juries can potentially nullify, but usually don’t. I’m sure there are holes in this understanding and would welcome a lawyer’s perspective.

Here, we see what happens when police recommend charges, prosecutors feel the case is worth pursuing, and their politically-assigned – either by appointment or by election, depending on state – boss breaks the rules to protect someone. It’s possible she’ll see jail time for this. So, clearly, this is not a good approach to de facto nullifying a law.

Having a friendly district attorney is useful because they can prevent a case from going to court, but we learn from this case that this is far from sufficient. Friendly police can prevent a case from even reaching prosecutors by using their discretion, and where they can’t, they can apply the law in such a way that it minimally disrupts the community’s way of life.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that controlling the district attorney’s office may be part of covering all your bases, but it will not form the core of any plan to safeguard a community’s way of life from intrusive laws. Controlling your local police, from patrolmen up to the chief, is much more essential. This lesson will become crucial later when I exposit my plan for a patriarchal enclave. Stay tuned.