Rise above selective prosecution, a critical issue demanding immediate attention, is about more than just legal technicalities. It’s about the integrity of our justice system and the trust we place in its processes. Selective prosecution, when prosecutors target individuals or groups based on factors other than the merits of the case, undermines the very foundation of fairness and equality.
This blog post delves into the complexities of this issue, exploring its historical context, potential ramifications, and legal remedies available.
We’ll examine how selective prosecution can manifest in various forms, from politically motivated cases to instances of bias. Understanding the historical backdrop, identifying potential cases, and exploring available legal remedies are key to combating this serious threat to a just society.
Defining Selective Prosecution
Selective prosecution, a serious allegation, asserts that the decision to prosecute a particular individual or group is motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory intent, rather than by the objective merits of the case. This differs fundamentally from legitimate prosecutorial discretion, which allows for the prioritizing of resources and focuses on the most serious cases. Understanding the nuances between these concepts is critical for ensuring fair and equitable application of the law.Selective prosecution claims are not easily proven.
They require meticulous examination of the prosecutor’s motivations, the specifics of the case, and the broader context in which the prosecution occurred. This detailed analysis aims to expose potential biases or retaliatory motivations hidden behind the facade of objective legal proceedings.
Key Characteristics of Selective Prosecution
Selective prosecution goes beyond a prosecutor’s discretion to choose cases. It implies a purposeful and discriminatory targeting of certain individuals or groups. This targeted approach is often rooted in considerations extraneous to the merits of the case itself. The key characteristics include an evident lack of uniformity in applying the law and an apparent motive to punish or disadvantage a specific group.
Distinguishing Selective Prosecution from Other Forms of Prosecutorial Misconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct encompasses a wide range of actions, including suppression of evidence, fabrication of evidence, and improper use of plea bargains. Selective prosecution, while a form of misconduct, distinguishes itself by focusing on the
- process* of selecting cases rather than the
- actions within* a specific case. Selective prosecution claims allege that the entire process was rigged from the start. It’s a claim that the law was not uniformly applied, and that the targeting was intentional.
Legal Standards for Evaluating Claims of Selective Prosecution
Claims of selective prosecution require a rigorous legal standard. Courts typically demand evidence of purposeful discrimination or selective enforcement. The plaintiff must show that similarly situated individuals who did not belong to the targeted group were not prosecuted. This comparison highlights the discriminatory nature of the selective prosecution. A high burden of proof is often required.
Courts scrutinize the prosecutor’s stated reasons for the decision, examining whether they are plausible and consistent with established legal practices.
Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Selective Prosecution
| Feature | Prosecutorial Discretion | Selective Prosecution |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | To prioritize cases based on resource allocation, severity of the crime, and likelihood of success. | To target specific individuals or groups based on factors unrelated to the merits of the case, such as race, religion, or political affiliation. |
| Motivation | To maximize the effectiveness of the prosecution system within resource constraints. | To retaliate against, punish, or disadvantage a specific individual or group. |
| Impact | Potential impact on the efficient use of prosecutorial resources. | Potential impact on the fair application of the law and the rights of the targeted individuals. |
| Legal Ramifications | Generally permissible within the bounds of the law. | Potentially violates the equal protection clause or due process clause of the Constitution. |
This table illustrates the crucial differences between prosecutorial discretion, a legitimate function of the legal system, and selective prosecution, which is a serious violation of due process. The table highlights the distinction in purpose, motivation, impact, and the potential legal consequences of each. Note that the legal standards for determining selective prosecution can vary depending on jurisdiction.
Historical Context of Selective Prosecution
Selective prosecution, the practice of targeting certain individuals or groups for legal action while overlooking others similarly situated, has a long and complex history intertwined with socio-political power dynamics. This historical context reveals recurring patterns and illuminates the factors contributing to such discriminatory practices across various legal systems. Understanding these instances provides crucial insight into the potential for bias and injustice within the application of the law.The application of the law is not always neutral.
Historical instances of selective prosecution demonstrate that societal pressures, political agendas, and economic interests can influence who is targeted for legal action. This historical review allows us to critically evaluate the fairness and impartiality of legal processes and the importance of independent oversight mechanisms.
Historical Examples of Selective Prosecution
Selective prosecution has been observed throughout history, often mirroring the power imbalances and social tensions of the time. Examining these examples highlights the need for vigilant scrutiny of the application of laws to ensure equal treatment under the law.
Rising above selective prosecution is crucial, especially when powerful figures seem to operate outside the law. Take the case of Felicia Snoop Pearson and Ed Burns, whose wiretap controversy, detailed in felicia snoop pearson ed burns wire , highlights the need for fair application of justice. This case, like many others, underscores the importance of ensuring that everyone, regardless of their position or influence, is held accountable under the law, and that selective prosecution is ultimately defeated.
- Ancient Rome: Examples of selective prosecution can be found in Roman history, where the application of laws varied depending on social class and political standing. For instance, the persecution of certain political opponents might be more severe than the prosecution of common criminals.
- Colonial America: Selective prosecution played a crucial role in maintaining the status quo during the colonial period. Laws and enforcement practices were often disproportionately applied against marginalized groups, like enslaved people or those who resisted colonial rule.
- Nazi Germany: The persecution of Jews and political dissidents during the Nazi era is a stark example of selective prosecution driven by an extremist ideology. Laws were manipulated and enforced selectively to achieve specific political goals.
- Post-Civil Rights Era United States: Even after landmark civil rights legislation, instances of selective prosecution have persisted, often targeting minority groups or individuals who challenged discriminatory practices.
Socio-Political Factors Influencing Selective Prosecution
Throughout history, selective prosecution has been influenced by various socio-political factors. Understanding these factors is crucial for recognizing potential biases in the legal system.
- Political Power Dynamics: Political leaders and factions often use the legal system to target opponents or silence dissent. This can manifest in selectively enforcing laws against political adversaries.
- Racial and Ethnic Discrimination: The disproportionate targeting of certain racial or ethnic groups for legal action is a historical pattern. This can be due to systemic racism or prejudice embedded in the legal system.
- Economic Interests: Selective prosecution can be employed to protect the interests of powerful economic actors, such as corporations or wealthy individuals, by not pursuing cases against them.
- Social Norms and Values: Cultural and societal values can influence the application of laws. For example, certain behaviors might be tolerated in one social group while heavily prosecuted in another.
Comparative Analysis of Selective Prosecution Across Jurisdictions
Comparing selective prosecution across different jurisdictions reveals varying patterns and degrees of prevalence. Examining these differences highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of legal systems and their interactions with social contexts.
- Common Law vs. Civil Law Systems: The differing approaches to legal interpretation and enforcement in common law and civil law systems can lead to different outcomes in cases of selective prosecution. Common law systems, with their reliance on precedent, may offer more opportunities for challenging selective enforcement.
- Developed vs. Developing Countries: The socio-economic disparities between developed and developing countries can influence the likelihood and impact of selective prosecution. Corruption and lack of transparency in legal processes in developing countries often increase the risk of selective prosecution.
Table of Examples
| Period | Country | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1930s | Nazi Germany | Persecution of Jews and political opponents |
| 1960s | United States | Discriminatory enforcement of laws against African Americans |
| Present | Various Countries | Selective enforcement of environmental regulations against smaller businesses |
Identifying Potential Cases of Selective Prosecution
Uncovering selective prosecution requires a meticulous examination of prosecutorial decisions, going beyond mere accusations of bias. This involves a systematic approach to identify patterns and motivations behind charging choices. A critical lens is needed to evaluate if the application of laws appears uneven or if certain individuals or groups are disproportionately targeted.The framework for identifying potential selective prosecution cases must incorporate an analysis of charging decisions, motivations, and contextual factors.
This investigation goes beyond a simple comparison of outcomes and instead delves into the reasoning behind the decisions. Understanding the specific details surrounding each case is crucial in identifying any inconsistencies or potential discrimination.
Framework for Identifying Potential Cases
A systematic approach is essential for uncovering potential cases of selective prosecution. This involves analyzing charging decisions, considering the motivations behind prosecutorial choices, and evaluating the broader context in which these decisions were made. This detailed investigation helps determine if the application of laws appears uneven or if specific individuals or groups are disproportionately targeted.
Analyzing Patterns in Charging Decisions
A crucial step in identifying potential selective prosecution is analyzing patterns in charging decisions. This includes examining the consistency of application of laws across similar cases. Discrepancies in the application of the law, where similar conduct is treated differently, could point to selective prosecution. A thorough review of charging decisions should consider various factors, including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s background, and the specific circumstances surrounding each case.
Evaluating Motivations Behind Prosecutorial Choices
Understanding the motivations behind prosecutorial choices is vital for assessing potential selective prosecution. Factors like political considerations, personal biases, or resource constraints can influence charging decisions. Investigating the motivations behind the choices requires a comprehensive review of the available evidence, including statements from prosecutors, internal documents, and public records. Examining potential conflicts of interest and political pressures can provide insights into the reasons behind prosecutorial decisions.
Speaking of rising above injustice, the recent NYC shooting on the D train, detailed in this article nyc shooting d train , highlights the urgent need for justice and accountability. We need to push for an end to selective prosecution, ensuring that everyone, regardless of background or circumstance, is treated fairly under the law. It’s a tough fight, but one we must continue to pursue.
Table of Factors to Consider
| Factor | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency of Application | Are similar cases treated similarly? Are there discrepancies in the application of the law? | A company is charged with environmental violations, while another company with identical violations is not charged. |
| Defendant Characteristics | Are certain characteristics of defendants consistently targeted? | Individuals from a particular racial or ethnic background are disproportionately targeted for certain crimes. |
| Motivations of Prosecutors | What factors might have influenced the prosecutorial decisions? | Political pressure, personal biases, or resource constraints. |
| Contextual Factors | Are there broader societal or political contexts that might influence the decision? | A rise in political tension or a shift in public opinion may affect charging decisions. |
| Available Evidence | Is there sufficient evidence to support the charging decision? | Are there inconsistencies or missing information that raise questions about the validity of the evidence? |
Legal Remedies for Selective Prosecution
Navigating the legal landscape of selective prosecution requires understanding the available avenues for challenging unjust targeting. This section delves into the legal mechanisms individuals can utilize to contest the perceived discriminatory application of laws. The potential for wrongful prosecution due to bias or political motivations necessitates robust legal remedies.Selective prosecution claims often arise when individuals believe they are targeted for prosecution while others engaged in similar conduct are not.
This perception of unequal treatment demands a structured legal framework for redress. Understanding the procedural steps and the burden of proof involved in these claims is crucial for those seeking to challenge such actions.
It’s frustrating to see instances of selective prosecution, where justice seems unevenly applied. Recently, the ongoing saga surrounding Andy Reid’s contract negotiations with the Chiefs highlights how these issues can spill into public view. Andy Reid chiefs contract negotiations are a fascinating case study of the pressure and scrutiny that can arise when high-profile figures are involved, but ultimately, the focus should always be on upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring everyone is treated fairly, no matter their position or public profile.
Rising above selective prosecution is key for a just society.
Legal Avenues for Challenging Selective Prosecution
Several legal avenues exist for challenging selective prosecution. These avenues include motions to dismiss, preliminary injunctions, and, in certain cases, civil lawsuits. A motion to dismiss argues that the prosecution is inherently flawed due to its discriminatory nature. Preliminary injunctions aim to halt the prosecution pending a resolution of the selective prosecution claim. Finally, civil lawsuits may be pursued if the individual believes they have suffered significant harm as a result of the selective prosecution.
The choice of legal avenue depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the desired outcome.
Procedural Steps in Bringing a Selective Prosecution Claim
The process of bringing a selective prosecution claim involves a series of procedural steps. Initially, the individual must demonstrate a prima facie case of selective prosecution. This typically involves presenting evidence suggesting that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted or that the prosecution was motivated by discriminatory factors. After establishing this case, the individual may file a motion to dismiss or a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A court hearing follows, where both sides present evidence and arguments. The outcome depends on the court’s evaluation of the presented evidence and legal arguments.
Burden of Proof in Selective Prosecution Cases
The burden of proof in selective prosecution cases is significant. The individual alleging selective prosecution must prove that the prosecution was based on discriminatory factors. This requires demonstrating that the prosecution targeted them specifically and that other individuals engaged in similar conduct were not prosecuted. Moreover, the individual must demonstrate that the decision to prosecute was motivated by impermissible considerations, such as race, religion, or political affiliation.
Successfully meeting this burden of proof is challenging, as it necessitates a comprehensive and compelling presentation of evidence.
Legal Defenses Against Claims of Selective Prosecution
The prosecution can raise several defenses against claims of selective prosecution. These defenses aim to demonstrate that the prosecution was not motivated by discriminatory factors.
| Defense | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Enforcement | The prosecution argues that the decision to prosecute was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct differed significantly from other similar conduct. | Prosecution of a drug dealer who sold drugs in a high-crime area, while other dealers in lower-crime areas were not prosecuted, could be argued as a discretionary enforcement decision based on public safety concerns. |
| Objective Criteria | The prosecution argues that the decision to prosecute was based on objective criteria and not on discriminatory factors. | A prosecution for fraud based on clearly defined statutory violations, rather than personal biases, exemplifies the use of objective criteria. |
| Lack of Evidence of Discriminatory Intent | The prosecution asserts that there is no evidence to support the claim of discriminatory intent. | If the defendant’s prosecution was based on evidence and law, the prosecution can argue that there is no evidence of discrimination. |
Rise Above Selective Prosecution – Societal Impact
Selective prosecution, the unjust targeting of specific individuals or groups for prosecution, is a grave threat to the rule of law and societal well-being. It undermines public trust in the legal system, creating a climate of fear and suspicion, and can potentially incite social unrest. This insidious practice can have far-reaching consequences for individuals, communities, and the justice system itself.The erosion of public trust is a significant consequence of selective prosecution.
When individuals perceive that the legal system is not applied equally, their faith in its impartiality is shattered. This mistrust can extend to other institutions and lead to a general sense of disillusionment and cynicism towards authority. Furthermore, it can impede efforts to address legitimate social issues, as people become skeptical of attempts to enforce the law.
Detrimental Effects on Society
Selective prosecution undermines the fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. It creates a system where the application of laws is inconsistent and arbitrary, often based on factors like political affiliation, socioeconomic status, or race. This inequality can lead to feelings of injustice and resentment within the targeted communities. Furthermore, selective prosecution can incite social unrest and division, as groups perceive that they are being unfairly targeted and discriminated against.
The resulting conflict can destabilize communities and disrupt social harmony.
Fighting selective prosecution is crucial, especially when considering cases like the disappearance of a couple on a boat in Grenada. Recent news reports highlight the urgent need for fairness in investigations, as the case of the missing couple ( couple missing boat grenada ) demonstrates how easily justice can be obstructed. We must rise above these instances and work towards a system where everyone is treated equally under the law.
Erosion of Public Trust in the Legal System
The perception of unequal application of the law directly erodes public trust in the legal system. When individuals believe that the legal system is not impartial and is being used selectively against specific groups, they are less likely to respect its authority. This lack of trust can lead to a decline in civic engagement, decreased cooperation with law enforcement, and an overall sense of alienation from the legal system.
This distrust can further exacerbate social tensions and create a breeding ground for civil disobedience.
Examples of Social Unrest
History is replete with examples of selective prosecution leading to social unrest. The targeting of specific religious groups or ethnic minorities for disproportionate enforcement of laws has often led to protests, riots, and even violent conflicts. Similarly, politically motivated prosecutions can incite strong reactions from those who believe they are being unfairly targeted. These incidents highlight the potential for selective prosecution to destabilize entire communities and countries.
The perceived unfairness fuels distrust, resentment, and ultimately, potential violence.
Potential Consequences of Selective Prosecution
| Impact | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Erosion of Trust | Weakening of public confidence in the legal system, leading to skepticism and disillusionment. | A community facing disproportionate drug arrests feels targeted and loses faith in the fairness of law enforcement. |
| Social Unrest | Increased tension, protests, and potential violence arising from perceived injustice. | A political crackdown on dissent leads to widespread demonstrations and civil unrest. |
| Community Division | Heightened segregation and antagonism between different groups. | Targeting of immigrants for specific laws leads to a hostile environment and alienation of the immigrant community. |
| Disruption of Social Order | Breakdown of established norms and societal structures. | Selective prosecution in a highly politicized context can destabilize a nation and cause significant social disruption. |
| Legal System Damage | Undermining the credibility and integrity of the justice system. | Repeated cases of politically motivated prosecution weaken public confidence and perception of the legal system’s impartiality. |
Illustrative Case Studies
Selective prosecution, the unjust targeting of individuals or groups for legal action based on factors other than their alleged wrongdoing, is a complex and pervasive issue. Understanding its manifestation requires delving into specific historical and contemporary cases. These illustrative examples provide crucial context, showcasing the legal battles, arguments, and outcomes associated with accusations of selective prosecution. Analyzing these cases allows us to identify patterns and develop a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding this critical issue.
Landmark Cases of Selective Prosecution
Cases involving selective prosecution often highlight systemic biases or political motivations. Scrutinizing these instances illuminates the challenges in proving such accusations and the need for robust legal protections against discriminatory practices. The legal landscape surrounding selective prosecution is not always clear-cut, demanding a meticulous examination of evidence and legal arguments.
-
The case of United States v. Armstrong (1996) exemplifies the difficulties in proving selective prosecution. The defendants, African American men, argued that the federal government had targeted them disproportionately for drug offenses. The Supreme Court, in its decision, set a high bar for establishing selective prosecution, requiring defendants to show that similarly situated individuals outside their group were treated differently.
It’s crucial to rise above selective prosecution, no matter the pressure. The housing market near NYC, for example, is currently experiencing significant shifts, as detailed in this article , highlighting how these forces can disproportionately affect certain groups. Ultimately, upholding the rule of law and fairness requires a steadfast commitment to resisting these injustices.
This case emphasizes the demanding evidentiary standard necessary to successfully challenge selective prosecution claims.
- Another notable case is Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). This case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, focused on the discriminatory enforcement of a San Francisco ordinance regulating laundries. The Court found that the seemingly neutral ordinance was being applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese laundries, establishing a crucial precedent regarding the unconstitutionality of discriminatory enforcement of laws. This case serves as a powerful reminder of how selective prosecution can stem from seemingly neutral laws but have profound discriminatory impacts.
- The case of Wayte v. United States (1985) involved the selective prosecution of a man who had distributed anti-draft materials. The Supreme Court held that while selective prosecution could be challenged, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the government had acted with discriminatory intent. This case underscored the crucial element of intent in establishing a successful selective prosecution claim.
Legal Arguments in Selective Prosecution Cases
Successfully challenging selective prosecution often necessitates demonstrating that the government’s enforcement actions were motivated by discriminatory intent or based on impermissible factors. Defendants must demonstrate that others, similarly situated but not part of the targeted group, were not prosecuted. The legal arguments in these cases typically revolve around the following key components:
- Discriminatory Intent: A critical element in proving selective prosecution is demonstrating the government’s discriminatory intent. This might involve showing evidence of biased enforcement practices, such as targeting individuals based on race, ethnicity, or political affiliation.
- Disparate Treatment: Defendants must show that similarly situated individuals outside their group were not prosecuted. This involves meticulous comparisons between the defendant’s circumstances and those of others facing comparable circumstances.
- Lack of Legitimate Enforcement Rationale: The defense can argue that the government’s enforcement actions lack a legitimate enforcement rationale. This could involve demonstrating that the enforcement was inconsistent with established policies or guidelines.
Summary of Case Studies
| Case Name | Key Features | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Armstrong | Selective prosecution of African American men for drug offenses. Defendants argued disparate treatment. | Supreme Court ruled against the defendants, setting a high evidentiary standard for proving selective prosecution. |
| Yick Wo v. Hopkins | Discriminatory enforcement of a San Francisco ordinance regulating laundries against Chinese laundries. | Supreme Court found the ordinance’s enforcement unconstitutional due to discriminatory application. |
| Wayte v. United States | Selective prosecution of a man distributing anti-draft materials. | Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had to demonstrate discriminatory intent. |
Strategies for Preventing Selective Prosecution
Selective prosecution, the unjust targeting of individuals or groups based on factors other than the merits of the case, undermines the integrity of the legal system. Preventing such abuses requires a multi-faceted approach that focuses on transparency, accountability, and rigorous prosecutorial guidelines. Addressing this issue is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring fairness for all.Effective strategies for preventing selective prosecution are essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system.
These strategies encompass robust policies and procedures that promote impartial decision-making and accountability within the prosecution process.
Prosecutorial Decision-Making Best Practices
Prosecutorial decision-making should be guided by clear, objective criteria. These criteria should prioritize the strength of the evidence, the seriousness of the alleged offense, and the need to maintain public safety. A documented and transparent process for evaluating cases is essential to ensure that all cases are considered fairly.
- Evidence-Based Decision-Making: Prosecutors should meticulously evaluate the available evidence before initiating prosecution. This includes scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of forensic evidence, and the completeness of the investigation. Cases lacking sufficient evidence should not be pursued.
- Objective Criteria: Establishing standardized guidelines and criteria for case selection will promote consistency and prevent arbitrary decisions. These guidelines should be accessible to the public and reviewed periodically to ensure their effectiveness.
- Independent Review: Incorporating an independent review process, possibly by a panel of experts or legal professionals, can provide an additional layer of scrutiny and objectivity in case evaluations.
Importance of Transparency and Accountability, Rise above selective prosecution
Transparency and accountability are vital components in preventing selective prosecution. Open communication and readily available information foster public trust and provide a mechanism for oversight. Accountability mechanisms allow for redress of grievances and deter future misconduct.
- Public Access to Information: Making prosecutorial decision-making processes more transparent, including guidelines, statistics on case selection, and the outcomes of cases, can foster public trust. This should not compromise legitimate confidentiality concerns.
- Independent Oversight Bodies: Establishing independent bodies tasked with reviewing prosecutorial decisions can enhance accountability and prevent selective prosecution. These bodies should have the authority to investigate complaints and issue recommendations.
- Mechanisms for Redress: Individuals who believe they have been subjected to selective prosecution should have clear and accessible avenues for seeking redress. This may include mechanisms for appealing decisions or filing complaints.
Recommendations for Improving the Legal System
Implementing the following recommendations can further strengthen the legal system and combat selective prosecution. These are designed to encourage fairness, consistency, and impartiality in the justice system.
- Standardized Training for Prosecutors: Providing comprehensive training on ethical considerations, evidence-based decision-making, and the principles of due process can enhance the professionalism and objectivity of prosecutors.
- Mandatory Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Mandating disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, such as prior relationships or biases, will help ensure impartial decision-making. This promotes transparency and avoids the appearance of impropriety.
- Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Empowering judges with greater authority to scrutinize prosecutorial decisions and ensure adherence to legal standards can help prevent selective prosecution.
End of Discussion: Rise Above Selective Prosecution
In conclusion, the fight against selective prosecution requires a multi-faceted approach, encompassing historical analysis, legal frameworks, and a commitment to transparency and accountability. By understanding the factors that contribute to selective prosecution, and the consequences it brings, we can move toward a more just and equitable legal system. The implications for individuals, communities, and the entire legal system are profound, making this issue one that demands our collective attention and action.
Clarifying Questions
What are some examples of factors that might lead to selective prosecution?
Political motivations, personal biases, or targeting specific demographics can all contribute to selective prosecution. Often, these cases involve a lack of transparency and accountability in the prosecutorial process.
What are the key legal standards for evaluating claims of selective prosecution?
Legal standards often involve demonstrating that the prosecution’s actions were motivated by discriminatory factors rather than legitimate prosecutorial discretion.
What are some historical instances of selective prosecution?
Throughout history, there have been numerous instances of selective prosecution in various legal systems, influenced by a range of socio-political factors. These instances often highlight the importance of transparency and accountability in preventing such abuses of power.
How can we prevent selective prosecution from occurring?
Transparency in prosecutorial decision-making, clear guidelines, and robust mechanisms for oversight are crucial steps to prevent selective prosecution. Furthermore, public awareness and engagement in the legal process can also play a key role.
