But I went to court, came back and reread everything and saw this

“There are lots of “honorable,” smart people working as prosecutors. Our point of divergence is simply one of philosophy.”

I guess he doesn’t hate ALL of us after all. Carry on.

We east coasters elected fascists like Mrs. Clinton. You elected Ron Paul. What am I missing?

I don’t disagree with much of that. Edward O. Wilson, in On Human Nature, of Lawrence Kohlberg’s six sequential stages of ethical reasoning. I’ll write more about those later, but Wilson suugests that “the ontogeny of moral development is likely to have been genetically assimilated and is now part of the automatically guided process of mental development. . . the great maority of people reach stages four ["duty orientation"] or five ["legalistic orientation"] and are thus prepared to exist harmoniously — in Pleistocene hunter-gatherer camps.” Stage six is “conscience or principle orientation, primary allegiance to principles of choice, which can overrule law in cases the law is judged to do more harm than good.”

I don’t think I’m attacking prosecutors and judges, but rather their ideas. I’m trying to reveal the little man behind the curtain. If that puts a prosecutor on the defensive, too bad — it’s the best I can do. I’m frankly more interested in the people who aren’t yet prosecutors. They don’t have as much stake in continuing to believe that they are competent to decide who gets punished.

You invoke Jesus and Gandhi, and also say, “I just don’t think that fighting the system is as effective as working from within it.” History has shown time after time that the natural evolution of society is for institutions to become more powerful and people less powerful (that is, less free). People working within the system might slow the decline of human freedom, but the only ones who have ever reversed that decline are the revolutionaries. Jesus and Gandhi are excellent examples — see this Radical Stuff.

If you are not a “law and order” sort — if you oppose the death penalty — if you oppose prosecution for victimless crimes — if you oppose practically all intrusions of the state into private affairs — then I don’t know of a prosecutor’s office that would hire you. Even if they do, you’re going to wind up in the defense bar sooner rather than later (it’s what you’re made for), so let me be the first to welcome you. Welcome!

Your suggestions are fantastic, in that they would be a fantastic way to run a government for the 30 seconds it took for some leader to stand up and explain to the mob that their lot could be better, and that someone else is to blame for it, and that only that leader loves them enough to solve their problems for them. So they’ll open up the jails and throw in the troublemakers, and we’ll be back where we started. People are motivated by the stick much more than by the carrot, and until that changes there will always be discipline of one sort or another. Perhaps you would prefer the world of For Us the Living, where you either go along, or you get exiled.

I am proud to live in a country, if not a time zone, where people of conviction still live. I just don’t think that fighting the system is as effective as working from within it. Attacking prosecutors and judges for their inadequacies does not resolve the key issue, a lack of moral fiber and humility in their ranks. We should be inspiring people toward greater self examination, and wooing those who are already fluent in it, not forcing the opposition into a defensive posture. It is an extension of the teachings of ghandi and king: non-violence means more than no physical force. It means forcing those who would disagree with us to reconsider their own moral justifications, threatening them only with our rightness and our stubbornness.

Some of us don’t think we (any of us) are wise enough to decide who needs a spanking and who doesn’t. Even good prosecutors convict innocent people. Don’t believe for a moment that the fact that anon thinks he never prosecuted someone innocent means he never did so.

Many of us don’t think children should be spanked. Just as hitting children teaches children how to hit, using violence against people teaches people to use violence (and all governmental power ultimately flows from the government’s monopoly on violence).

Many more of us think that, as a parent, the government sucks. The government is no better at raising adults than it is at raising children.

The vicious and stupid prosecutors are conspicuous because they’re in the minority. There are lots of “honorable,” smart people working as prosecutors. Our point of divergence is simply one of philosophy.

From what I’ve seen of the world, it is clear to me that no human being or combination of human beings is competent to decide what another human being deserves. In order to prosecute people, one would have to believe otherwise.

I think that is an excellent response. I am the “mystery” prosecutor that Mark is referring to. They’re are obviously things that I disagree to in Mark’s post, but I think you hit the nail on the head. They are good and bad prosecutors. They are good and bad defense attorneys. I believe you can be honorable no matter which side you’re on.

Some cases do involves shades of gray where the only ones who know Exactly what happened are the ones who were present. As a prosecutor do I automatically disregard or believe what a victim is saying? No, but I do have to have something to coroborate their version before I can go forward. Then there those cases that are black and white, when there is no doubt in anyones mind what happened. I’m refering to those cases where it doens’t matter what the victim said to the offender b/c no one deserves what happended to them. If they’re that clear cut, they probably result in a plea, but some do make it to trial.

Mark mentioned how wishes of complaining witnesses are disregarded. They’re taken into consideration, but you can’t always appease them. A witness may want an offender to be “thrown under the jail” but the statutory penalty may be far less than that. It may be a “REAL CRIME” to the victim, but the prosecutor may view it as something that should be reduced or pled b/c that is a stnadard resolution for that offense or that persons criminal history. That’s called treating people fairly and applying the law fairly.

I’ve always viewed prosecutors and defense lawyers as two sides of the same coin. Excellent lawyers are needed on both sides.