More on the Outrageous Eric Adams Deal
Co-blogger Josh Blackman disagrees with my take (here and here) that the DOJ’s arrangement with Eric Adams is an outrage and a grave threat to those of use who care about liberty. No, no, no, he says; this is “the sort of thing DOJ does all the time.” There’s “no ‘quid pro quo'” involved, because “there is no bribery if a public act is exchanged for another public act.”
He’s wrong, and it’s not too difficult to demonstrate why. Here is his argument, broken down into its basics.
First, he observes (correctly) that “the Department of Justice routinely uses carrots and sticks to ‘induce’ defendants to support DOJ policy objectives.” He writes:
More than 90% of federal criminal cases end up in plea bargains. … Usually, the deals take a similar form: plead guilty, waive appeal rights, and the government will recommend a reduced sentence, or perhaps no sentence at all. … In many cases, a plea deal is conditioned on a defendant doing mor
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
