The Veneer of Justice in a kingdom of Crime

This is an excerpt from my upcoming book:

1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor
(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.
(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.
(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.
(d) It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor's attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action.
(e) It is the duty of the prosecutor to know and be guided by the standards of professional conduct as defined by applicable professional traditions, ethical codes, and law in the prosecutor's jurisdiction. The prosecutor should make use of the guidance afforded by an advisory council of the kind described in standard 4-1.5.
When examining this overarching job description, the order of the duties assigned to the Prosecutor makes clear what takes precedence, despite any argument to the contrary. Instead of the prosecutor seeking JUSTICE at the same time as fighting for REFORM of any/all laws that are not properly enforced, they prosecute cases in the belief that justice is served through the sound use of their discretion within the system. Based solely on that discretion (with or without evidence to support), prosecutors are allowed to decide and coerce defendants who are facing the real threat of their freedom being taken away. They choose who to prosecute, how many charges to apply, which charges to pursue, whom to offer pleas deals to, length of sentence requested and who to let go completely etc. The problem of discretion is very similar to that of the police, insofar as having nobody outside to be directly accountable to. Prosecutors and/or District attorney’s say that they represent the city/county/state/country they reside in against any individual, group, or organization of that same area who has transgressed the law of the land. The power ceded by the people for them to carry out this duty in (supposed) protection of the masses gives them pretext and legitimacy. The problem, once again, lies in the lack of oversight governing that power and the DA’s office having no fear of scrutiny of their practices. Rarely, if ever, does anyone question the validity of a prosecutor bringing charges against any individual citizen that poses even a perceived threat. When is the last time anyone heard of a prosecutor fighting against the over-punishment of the citizenry in any respect? When that ‘citizen’ is actually a multi-national corporation, whose actions were criminally negligent to the point of ruining the lives of millions of people worldwide.
Earlier in this chapter, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was discussed in reference to excesses of power being ceded to those who impose, create, or enforce the law that are not applied to everyone in the same fashion. The catalyst for this legislation being passed was fraudulence being done SYSTEMICALLY by major banks, insurance and investment companies buying and selling toxic mortgage backed securities. These entities (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, ING, UBS, etc.) were very well known along with the people in charge of them and it was assumed by most that someone would have to pay for putting the world on the brink of economic devastation. The Department of Justice, which is the prosecutor for the federal government, ultimately decided NOT to pursue federal charges, due to what they deemed to be ‘collateral consequences’ of an indictment and what that would mean to what had been characterized by some as a fragile economic system. This was the story told to the American people in an attempt to give a plausible rationale for what amounted to stealing what ended up being TRILLIONS of dollars. That is way beyond what could be considered Grand Larceny. In the last chapter, it was documented proving the willingness of prosecutors to indict and convict persons who commit ‘crimes’ with the millions of incarcerated persons, on top of an additional 6 million under observation through probation/parole,. What most of those people have in common is that they were not in control over a multi-billion dollar corporation. Eric Holder was the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney general for the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer made arguments that would suggest that there was a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a guilty verdict due to how the law was written and the burden of proof needed for conviction. The truth, however, is much more revealing and condemning.