BTW, I was also kind of relieved about the verdict, though I don't have an opinion either way on Jackson's guilt. The testimony was too tainted to believe anything.

I was even more relieved by Jackson's lawyer's statement that he would not be doing any more bed sharing in the future. Jackson may not have broken the law, and certainly was the target of a witch hunt... but, c'mon... he ought have a little propriety.

I heard there was a hostile witness (friend of Jackson) that testified to Jackson giving alchohol to the kids. If so, why not guilty on at least that charge?

I'll have to disagree somewhat.  The decision to prosecute does not rest upon a calculation of resources.  Rather, it is more often dependent on justice.   There are many, many crimes occurring, big and small, in daily society, but sometimes they are not worth pursuing because not much harm was done to society.  And of course, sometimes the evidence is simply not there so justice requires that the prosecutor withhold action.

Here, the harm to society was potentially great.  Child molestation is never, ever tolerated, and is worth pursuing even on the basis of only a couple of witnesses.  Sneddon really had no choice to prosecute this one, and justice won't allow a crime to go unpursued just because it's not cost-effective relative to the other crimes.

In contrast, the "resources" argument does make more sense in a recent context--Ken Starr and the 40 Million dollar Starr chamber which turned up a stain on an intern's dress.

"courts, DA's offices, and corrections departments all have limited resources at their disposal. You need to focus them where the expected costs exceed the expected benefits."

I disagree.  I think you should focus resources where the expected benefits exceed the expected costs.  That way you maximize social welfare.  Of course any intelligent calculation will include expected justice on the benefit side of the equation. 

Switching the words "costs" and "benefits" is typical of the fun that MY has always had with homophones.

MY, you make an important point about the use of prosecutorial resources.  I think the purpose of the criminal law system is terribly misunderstood in this country.  People watch Law & Order and other similar shows in this country where brave DA's see their job as "getting justice" for the victims.  The Victims' Rights movement in this country plays on the same idea.  But that's not what criminal justice is about -- it's about enforcing the rules that govern society and vindicating society's interest when they're violated.  That's why, for instance, it's always "The People" or "The State" vs. the defendant.  Vindicating individual interests -- getting justice for the victim -- is for the civil system. 

The importance of this distinction is this:  if the criminal justice system were about individual justice for victims, then there'd really be no justification in not pursuing every case in which there was sufficient evidence to go to a jury.  Why should some victims get "justice" and not others?  And if you don't have the resources to do that, get more resources.  Really.  

But if you take the view that the criminal justice system exists to keep our social order functioning, well obviously you don't need perfect enforcement for that.  You can probably send the message to potential lawbreakers with an "80/20 rule" approach.  And it's proper to weigh expenditures against other spending that can also promote social welfare, and decide that prosecution of lesser offenders just doesn't buy you as much as, say, a Head Start program (or what have you) -- even if that leaves individual victims "unvindicated" by the criminal justice system.

"You need to focus them where the expected costs exceed the expected benefits"  

Putting aside the small point that Matt means the exact  opposite of what he wrote, and the highly idiosyncratic aspects of the Michael Jackson trial, there is  a danger to this kind of reasoning --it is always easier to prosecute a poor individual than a rich one.
This is often true even in cases where the poor person is innocent and the rich person is guilty.   If prosecutors made decisions on who to prosecute purely on the basis of making the most efficient use of their resources, they might decide it was never worth the trouble to prosecute a rich person.   


 

Oh, and when I use an HTML tag, I want the whole world to know about it.<br />

Michael Jackson, the Runaway Bride, Robert Blake and OJ Simpson...I am sooooooo tired of all of it.  Instead of the MSM focusing on the major issues facing the nation and world they focus on the most lurid, selacious and titallating stories they can find to boost their ratings and circulations.  And we as a nation can't get enough of it...who am I to say, maybe I'm the one who is all f'ed up.

Matt,
I just read about three Derb columns where he is shockingly lucid.

Clearly the worst part about the prosecutorial system is that the negative feedback loop is weak and insufficient.

Prosecutors might choose cases based on society's needs, OR they might choose cases based on their own career needs.  Prosecutors may be good, or they may be incompetent.

There is little in the system that provides the right amount of negative feedback in the right amount of time to incompetent prosecutors, or prosecutors that choose cases based on their needs and not those of society.

The result being that society's control function over prosecutor's behavior is poor and society is illserved. 

As a result, we have over zealous prosecutors in Jackson and Schiavo and you can wonder what will happen if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing the wrong genitals, skin tone, or memento of your favorite superior being or secular interest.

Proposed ECO: some amount of a prosecutor's career and promotion should be subjected to an elected citizen review board.

What's the deak with your inability to use the preview function?