Creekster: "I can tell you that no one should ever have to have their life in the hands of prosecutorial discretion."
First response:
Your life is always in the hands of prosecutorial discretion. What, when, and how our laws will be enforced are all in the hands of our law enforcement officials.
Generally, that's okay b/c there's democratic feedback. At the federal level, the Executive sets policy over law enforcement. Bush to DOJ and FBI = focus on terrorism, public corruption, child pornography, and guns; Clinton = ignore obscenity. One reason I didn't like Clinton was because he didn't prosecute obscenity offenses and the porn industry flourished. I was therefore more likley to vote Republican in the next election (still didn't, but still).
The democratic feedback is even more responsive at the state and local level where we directly elect our attorneys' generals and district attorneys. Point: if we don't like the way the laws are being enforced, then boot the prosecutors out.
More fundamentally, we're at the mercy of the cops' discretion every day. Why am I never pulled over for speeding, but Archaea always is (apart from the nice car)? Discretion of the officers. One example that applies in all areas. Oh, and mayors often set law enforcement policy at the city level, so even more democratic response there. Complain about jerky cops.
So my first point (the sequels will come later) is that your "we don't like prosecutorial discretion" argument is a non-starter; at the federal, state, and local level, we are at the mercy of law enforcment officials as to how the laws will be enforced generally and specifically.
But I'm okay with that b/c of the democratic feedback mechanisms we have place in our political processes.
|