- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think that the prosecutor is one of the larger parts of the puzzle of what went wrong in our justice system. Robert H. Jackson was a United States Supreme Court Justice from 1941 until 1954 and was the chief prosecutor of the surviving Nazi leaders at Nuremberg, Germany in 1946. As Attorney General in 1940, he said in a speech to the United States Attorneys:
"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst."
Even in 1940 professionals inside the legal profession could see that enormous, almost unchecked power is wielded by America's prosecutors.
Ever since the odious Richard Nixon unleashed the domestic "war on crime" in the 1970s the only thing the much of the public has paid attention to is the "batting average" of the prosecutors; that is, the rate of convictions.
The conviction rate has become the main test of the performance of the prosecutor, even though officially our system asks that the prosecutor seek justice first and foremost. It is an accepted maxim that unchecked power leads to abuse; so why do we not see that it is impossible to merely trust that our prosecutors are acting in the interest of justice rather than their own selfish designs without some effective oversight mechanism?
One attorney wrote, "Traditionally, the expectations of ethical conduct by prosecutors are so low, and the willingness to turn a blind eye to their ethical lapses is so high, that they have no reasonable fear of being held accountable in any forum for their failings, whether deliberate or incompetent. Essentially, they are given carte blanche to be bad."
I think justice, both home and abroad, should be the main political fight of this era. Without justice, how can there be peace?
