Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Today, a national
debate rages about the functioning of our criminal justice system. Is it
fair? Does it serve the ends of justice and public safety? Does it
apply equally to all? Prosecutors, endowed with both autonomy and
immunity, hold immense power within this system. They control secret
grand jury proceedings, who will be prosecuted, and the specifics of
charges. Moreover, those charges are often based on complex laws -- and
enforced by long mandatory minimum prison sentences -- creating strong
incentives for defendants to capitulate to lesser charges, perhaps even
to crimes they did not commit. Indeed, more than 90% of both federal and
state court cases never go trial, but instead are resolved through plea
bargaining. Autonomy and secrecy, complex criminal code and mandatory
minimums -- in combination, these factors have given prosecutors
enormous leverage, and the opportunity to wield it relentlessly and
selectively. The results, critics charge, are the undermining of the
right to jury trial, mass incarceration, public skepticism regarding
equal justice, and immense pressure on every defendant.
Yet there
can be no justice without empowered prosecutors. And is abuse really
endemic? Isn't the national crime rate down over the long-term, showing
that these powers work? And would changes reducing the leverage of
prosecutors in the criminal justice system weaken their critical
responsibility to prosecute crimes of great complexity, keep communities
and the nation safe, and secure justice? Do prosecutors have too much
power?
Source.
