Special Prosecutor

Since the grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, a number of other cases have come to light. Rather than comment on each of them, let me say that I do see a few problems.

For starters, there is such a thing as white privilege. A white man who has had to struggle for what little he has might have a problem with the concept, but it is a valid one nonetheless. However difficult a man's life might be, there are challenges that are experienced uniquely by women. This is no different.

I think people sometimes get caught up in a competition to see who gets to be seen as life's greatest victims. A necessary part of this competition is to minimize the significance of all obstacles other than one's own. A black person who fails to recognize the victimization of white people is doing essentially the same thing.

In each of these cases, where a black person was killed by a white police officer, we might ask what actually happened, to what extent the deceased was to blame for what happened to him, to what extent race played a role, and whether the officer committed murder, displayed incompetence, of simply did what had to be done.

Though I do have my own opinion about each of these cases, I have concluded that expressing what I continue to be the correct viewpoint, with no aim other than to show everyone who sees things differently than I do that they are wrong, serves no legitimate purpose. I have my viewpoint, and you have yours. Let's leave it at that.

Regardless of how one might judge a particular case, I think most of us can agree that there is something very wrong with a police officer being prosecuted by a prosecutor who routinely works in partnership with the police. The well intentioned prosecutor can turn a case over to a special prosecutor, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. But that option does nothing to restrain a prosecutor from deliberately throwing a case. We needn't agree that this has ever happened. Let's address it, because it could happen.

I am of the opinion that electing prosecutors serves no legitimate purpose. Theoretically, this is supposed to enable a prosecutor to pursue politically divisive cases, without having to worry about the possibility of antagonizing his superiors. But because prosecutors routinely work in partnership with the police, they are understandably reluctant to antagonize them. I suspect the election of prosecutors also increases the incidence of wrongful convictions, due to the pressure prosecutors are under to get convictions.

While I believe most cases should be prosecuted by a prosecutor who has been appointed by the local executive, I favor the creation of an Office of the Special Prosecutor, who would be elected, and whose job it is to prosecute cases which, in his judgment, might otherwise constitute a conflict of interests. I would like to see this done in every jurisdiction, from the county to the federal level.

Will this result in justice in every case? Of course not. It is unlikely that we will ever agree, as to what justice would even look like. But I do believe it offers us a better way of pursuing cases than we have now.

The greatest objection I see might be raised by those who would point to the shameful impeachment of President Clinton, with the help of a special prosecutor. The practice of sicking a special prosecutor on someone gives too little consideration to the possibility that a given case ought not to be pursued. The special prosecutor I'm talking about is an elected official, who takes it upon himself to prosecute a case or not, as he sees fit.