Originally Posted by
fredgarvin7
"If she had an airtight case, she'd go to trial."
NO case is airtight. ALL trials are risks because juries are unpredictable. This is a basic fact of the system which apparently you don't consider.
Which is exactly why I said a smart prosecutor would offer a deal in the first place. What are you even arguing about?
No I CRITICIZED him for taking a tiny plea for a serious crime. That is not 2nd guessing. It would be 2nd guessing if I criticized him for losing. Which I have stated I WOULDN'T do.
Criticizing for taking a plea is not second-guessing, criticizing for losing a case is second-guessing. I'll admit, I can't follow your logic. I'd disagree with you, but I haven't a clue how to actually do that at this point. You said the prosecutor should have pushed for more time. That seems an awful lot like second-guessing to me. That said, if you really want to dither about whether "second-guessing" and "criticizing" mean the same thing, you can have a semantics debate with someone else.
And what you should READ is your local paper. There ARE prosecutors who soft pedal pleas and DO get called to account.
Prove it. Post a link where a prosecutor gave out light sentences because of political ambitions. Any link.