The type of personality that aims for this position also intrigues me. The number of bodies you need to stand upon to get to the top is horrible.

you don't think there are at least some benevolent DAs who work hard to conduct themselves ethically and aim for the seat because they truly are interested in making their communities a better place?

maybe it's why i struggle in many ways, but i like to assume that not all roads to power are dripping with the blood of those who were ran over.

It’s that prosecutors don’t hold each other accountable (or the bar doesn’t disbar them) often enough for misconduct - see the books by Paul Butler, Emily Bazelon, and Angela J. Davis

or maybe we just need to elevate the status (including both lifetime compensation and career progression) of public defenders to that of their prosecutorial counterparts. similar to how we need to elevate the status of scientific replication to that of novel discovery.

It won't happen. Our current justice system _needs_ a lot of people to take plea bargains, because neither the defense, nor prosecution, nor judges, have the resources for most cases to actually hit the courtroom.

Studies estimate that 90-95% of criminal cases are settled via a plea deal.

It's one of the greatest shams of our justice system. The Constitution guarantees you habeus corpus, but we are in no way equipped to actually offer that. If you accept the government defense, everyone involved has a vested interest in preventing you from exercising that right.

I think the current style of plea bargains should be ruled unconstitutional, and the bar should have some serious thoughts about the ethics of some DAs. I simply can't fathom that "accept this plea deal or we're going to ask the judge to double the sentence if we win" doesn't seem like the government trying to force someone to abandon their constitutional rights, and trigger a very serious ethics investigation.

Can you imagine a doctor saying that they're going to do a bad job treating you if you don't sign away your HIPPA rights? Or what the medical board would do to anyone that tried?

Insidiously, I think that neatly whitewashes the fact that our body of laws has become so broad and overreaching that we can't really allow people to exercise their rights. If they did, the Department of Justice would balloon up to the size of the Pentagon, and the extra taxes would put a huge drag on our economy.

Ortiz was not elected. She was a U.S. attorney appointed by Obama.

fair. point stands. some are elected, others are appointed. it's still an amazing amount of discretionary power that lands on the shoulders of single individuals.

Federal prosecutors are all appointed, not elected.

Your point stands. Napoleon once said "the most powerful man in France is the juge d'instruction", the prosecuting judge (a peculiar French institution comparable to a prosecutor).

Given how much Swartz achieved in his brutally short life, we can only imagine what we've lost with his passing.

Historically, the seat has not been wielded at a politically productive scale. More recently, a somewhat cogent policy front has formed. It is now getting a great deal of attention in places like SF, LA, Chicago, Philly, Sacramento, and many counties.

At least in some states, public health officers do.

This is literally true and yet downvoted. You do realize Y Combinator is in California, where this is literally true....

i think it was probably downvoted because it makes reference to an unrelated and broader national political battle.

but since we're here, i'll note that i suspect that there was great alignment between ca's executive leadership and recommendations from ca's public health authorities. bringing up public health officer power in california would be relevant, if say, ca public health officers were overriding the ca governor's office.

they were not, they were working together.