http://www.vaildaily.com/article/201...ntProfile=1062
i thought i might share my view as a former prosecutor.
i shouldn't have to say this, but obviously i don't mean to minimize or condone what this guy did.
apologies if i have any of the facts wrong.
My impression of this story is that it has been overhyped by the media.
News outlets know that stories about MONSTERS and OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE sell papers...and that the truth is often too complex and not interesting enough for a headline.
The problem is that we have been conditioned to lust for blood any time a story comes out.
(1) "felony charges will be dropped."
this is a little misleading. from my reading, it sounds like he was charged with a felony, but will be offered a misdemeanor plea. this is very different from "dropping" charges, since he will still have a criminal record. so it's not like he's getting off scott-free. regardless of what the press might have you believe, the VAST majority of criminal cases are pled down to lower charges.
(2) the issue of punishment
The media usually tells us that the defendants "are facing X years in jail."
Before reporting, they ask prosecutors what the MAXIMUM sentence would be, and then report on that. Obviously, higher jail numbers draw more attention. This has conditioned the public to believe that ARREST = GUILTY = JAIL.
In reality, the vast majority of criminal defendants don't get the maximum, or go to jail at all. especially not on a first offense.
(3) the job thing.
as a prosecutor, your job is to do justice. you have the power to choose not to prosecute someone if you want. that gives you the power to consider greater good:
first - the smaller point - when possible, prosecutors should at least CONSIDER the effect that a criminal disposition will have on a defendant beyond the sentence. if a felony charge will take a highly educated person who is employed and contributing to society and paying taxes (who committed a serious crime) and make them FOREVER unable to continue that work, that might be too harsh a charge.
we are not a society of executioners. criminal punishment (short of the death penalty) is aimed at deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. It is meant to be
FINITE - even life sentences. it is not meant to destroy a person FOREVER if they can be rehabilitated.
second - the bigger point - i'm sure we can all agree that money will help the VICTIM more than a felony charge. if this guy pleads guilty, even to a lesser criminal charge, the issue of his guilt will be an AUTO-WIN when the victim sues him in civil court. if he keeps working (keeps making millions) then he'll have the income to pay in the lawsuit. this is a way for the criminal and civil justice systems to work together.
If i were the prosecutor, this is how i would think about it. Go for a disposition that brands him a criminal while maximizing the ability for the victim to be made whole in the future.
CAVEAT - I would probably make sure it was okay with the victim before i did it.
CAVEAT TO THE CAVEAT- my office once did something similar to this, got the victim's approval, and then she STILL went on the news complaining about it. why? she and her attorney had booked appearances on news shows in the coming weeks. it's not interesting to hear her say "everything's fine."