General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]Bernardo de La Paz
(49,011 posts)You also mischaracterize the process: The proceedings (testimony) are secret, but the existence of the grand jury is public and if somebody refuses to testify, the proceeding where the judge cites them for contempt is public.
The prosecutor can't target somebody to "imprison anyone they like" (or don't like). To get sent to prison such as the OP's subject, several criteria have to all be satisfied: 1) There must be an offense that needs investigation. 2) A grand jury has to be properly and legally constituted. 3) The prosecutor has to convince enough jurors to issue a subpoena. 4) The subpoena has to be refused by the witness subpoenaed. 5) There may be a round of negotiation where immunity is offered to the witness. 6) The prosecutor has bring the issue before a judge. 7) The prosecutor has to convince the judge that there is no possibility of self-incrimination or offer immunity to the witness. 8) The judge has to issue a contempt citation. 9) The witness has to again refuse to testify.
Yes, we know that sometimes people will choose to go to prison rather than testify against a mafia boss to a grand jury. It's one way crimes go unsolved, criminals unpunished.
Over the top rhetoric such as "imprison anyone they like" that is false on the face of it, and false when examined, is unconvincing to the cause it advocates. In fact, over the top rhetoric like that makes observers think the people saying it are loons.
You are not a loon. You are a thoughtful writer who researches issues. I'd suggest avoiding the over-the-top rhetoric.