Unfortunately, because they can. Though generally, "loser" cases are handed off to younger lawyers as training exercises. The lawyers aren't expected to win the case but get the experience of trying a case before a real jury. It's a lot more ethical on the defense side than it is on the prosecution side (because prosecutors are theoretically ethically obligated not to bring a case to trial if they don't think they have a better than 50% chance of winning).
What about the OP's point are you trying to contradict?
I know you're really busy with all these other threads that might not have your opinion in them yet, but what exactly is so clear about this complicated situation?
Your comment is the equivalent of spraying a plant with a hose while not actually looking at it.
Can you leave a single thread alone, or do you need to toss out random inconsistent opinions at every single opportunity?
The fact that you don't understand my perspective on an issue, or have decided to put everyone in the world into a "with me" or "against me" bucket, does not mean I'm being inconsistent. I wouldn't bother to respond to a comment like this except that this is such a common pathology it might be helpful to call it out.
What makes this pathology even more annoying is that it suggests we'd rather have punching bags than discussions. It's as if any place we agree on the issues, and any progress we make towards agreement, is something to be mad about.
My guess is you've put me in the "thinks Aaron should have gone to prison" bucket, and thus we disagree about what should or shouldn't be criminalized. But we do not now nor have we ever disagreed that Aaron didn't deserve prison time for downloading journal articles (for fuck's sake). People who steal credit cards online have received suspended sentences.
And if you find anyone anywhere writing online that is making a coherent effort to argue on behalf of criminal sentencing, I'd sure love to know about it.
C'mon man, that's not at all what I said. I don't understand your perspective from your comment because you didn't make any sense.
your comment that i replied to:
"That's clearly not what happened in this case."
your comment as it is viewed now:
That's clearly not what happened in this case.
<i>Sorry, caught a call</i>
This case didn't get picked up by or delegated to a loser; it was run by one of the most senior computer crimes prosecutors in the country.
Oh, you "caught a call"? When the phone rings you just hit "reply"?
prosecutors are theoretically ethically obligated not to bring a case to trial if they don't think they have a better than 50% chance of winning
Just curious, are there any ethical obligations not to bring a case to trial if they don't believe that the defendant is guilty? Or it's just the chances of winning that matter?
Prosecutors, in theory, are supposed to seek justice, not victories. (Defense lawyers, on the other hand, are supposed to give their client the best possible representation. If the defense gets a guilty guy off, that's the prosecution's fault.)
Prosecutors shouldn't bring a case unless both a) they think the guy did it, and b) they think they are likely to win. We can debate to what threshold of doubt each of those statements hold, but that's the general gist.
Prosecutors are supposed to zealously represent their client, which in this case is the state. The are required to seek "justice" but necessarily that is defined somewhat more narrowly than in common parlance. They are not supposed to substitute their sense of justice (one way or another) for the state's and the people's sense of justice.
Drug laws are really the best example of this. Prosecutors are not allowed to say "I won't prosecute this case because drug usage is a victimless crime." My mom thinks drug usage is contagious in social circles and a tremendous danger to the youth, votes accordingly, and until that changes it's not right for some unelected prosecutor to second guess her.
Explain these funky ethics? 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is a different standard than 'preponderance of the evidence'. I would think if you have a 25% chance of being able to win on a 'beyond a reasonable doubt standard' against someone accused of, say, murder, it would be unethical not to prosecute.