[XorNot]

The prosecutor doesn't see it that way. They see it as just "knowing" the guy is "definitely guilty". It's just like, a feeling you know? And a win will look great when they go for re-election (why is that even a thing?).

Presuming rational actors in this case is missing the general problem with the system: people very easily convince themselves they know the truth despite how the validity of the evidence changes. Whatever it said initially, that must be right - it's misinformation 101. Once a belief is established it is much harder to change.

[jfengel]

And a win will look great when they go for re-election (why is that even a thing?).

You would prefer that they not be elected? That they would be appointed by some politician, with the public having no recourse?

The fact is that the public like prosecutors who convict people. That's deeply unfair. But it's also deeply democratic.

[XorNot]

You already elect politicians. If that system is producing people you don't trust to manage the affairs of state, why would electing prosecutors lead to different results?

[jfengel]

Hard to say, really. It's one of those compromises, quis custodiet and all that.

I very much agree with you: a government has a monopoly on violence and ultimately we all end up trusting it. Too many checks and balances lead to gridlock. Too few lead to oppression. Much of it ends up being decided on inertia. We do it both ways in different jurisdictions, with successes and failures in both.