136

ONE SIDE NOTE ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HERE , AND I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH THIS IS SUPPORTED BY HISTORY HERE AND COMMONLY PRACTICED ALL OVER THE EARTH, IS ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE VICTIM'S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE.  TO TELL A VICTIM THAT THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A HARM INFLICTED ON HIM BELONGS TO THE STATE NOT HIM IS AT THE TOP SCALE OF OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS BECAUSE IT IS AT THE LEVEL OF DIRECT DENYING TO THE EXISTENCE OF THAT VICTIM. DID EVEN ANY RELIGION, DESPITE BEING CLAIMED TO BE FROM THE CREATOR WHO OWNS EVERYTHING, TELL A VICTIM THAT THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE BELONGS TO GOD NOT TO HIM? 

YOU WANT TO ADD A RIGHT TO THE STATE TO PROSECUTE OR TO KEEP CIVIL ACTIONS FOR THE VICTIM? THERE MAY STILL BE AN ARGUMENT FOR JUSTICE IN THAT EVEN WITH THE RIGHT FOR THE VICTIM TO PROSECUTE. THAT IS BECAUSE EVEN WITH THE EQUALIZING OF ACTION AND REACTION THE PERPETRATOR IS STILL THE ONE WHO CHOSE THE DEAL NOT THE VICTIM. 

I DON'T LIKE TO ACCEPT, EVEN FOR MUCH LESS OBVIOUS THINGS, UNJUST OUTRAGEOUSNESS BECOMES SO COMMON AND EVERYBODY PASS ON IT WITHOUT POINTING OUT HOW WRONG IT IS.

ACTUALLY, ANY ARGUMENT DENYING THAT RIGHT TO THE VICTIM, BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EXISTENCE, IS MORE LIKE A HYPNOTISM EFFORT RATHER THAN AN ARGUMENT.

BY THE WAY, GIVEN THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION PRECEDE PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION, WHAT PREVENTS SEEKING A COURT ORDER COMPELLING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE WHEN IT UNJUSTLY REFUSES TO DO THAT?